Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. v. Gærtner
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Monroe. (Joslin, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. On the question of taking a case from the jury, counsel cite following authorities: Teipel v. Hilsendegen, 44 Mich. 461; Peterson v. Anderson, Id. 441; Demill v. Moffat, 45 Id. 412; Woodin v. Durfee, 46 Id. 427; Marcott v. M., H. & O. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 1; Somers v. Losey, 48 Id. 294; Winchester v. King, Id. 281. The meaning of written contracts must be determined by the…
Read the full summary
Error to Monroe. (Joslin, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. On the question of taking a case from the jury, counsel cite following authorities: Teipel v. Hilsendegen, 44 Mich. 461; Peterson v. Anderson, Id. 441; Demill v. Moffat, 45 Id. 412; Woodin v. Durfee, 46 Id. 427; Marcott v. M., H. & O. R. R. Co., 47 Id. 1; Somers v. Losey, 48 Id. 294; Winchester v. King, Id. 281. The meaning of written contracts must be determined by the court, but the effect of oral negotiations must be determined by the jury as matters of fact: McKenzie v. Sykes, 47 Mich.…
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
This case has been once heretofore in this-Court. The contract sued upon is set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice Sherwood in 55 Mich. 454.
We then held that it was competent for the defendant to-show that it was a part of the consideration, for which the order was given that the plaintiff should, at the time of the-delivery of the property ordered, furnish a man to set up the-machine, and make it work in the manner prescribed in the order.
The defendant, upon the last trial in the circuit, introduced testimony fairly tending .to show that the consideration, in part, consisted of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Paley v. Coca Cola CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
- Allis v. VoigtMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Massey-Harris Co. v. QuickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931