Legal Opinion
Crawford v. Calkins
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 31, 1912No. Docket No. 5PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Error to Shiawassee; Miner, J. Assumpsit by Mamie E. Crawford, assignee of John Crawford, against Beattie W. Calkins and another for commissions due for services performed by plaintiff’s assignor. A judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiff on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
This action is brought by plaintiff as assignee of her husband for an alleged breach of the following contract:
“Byron, Mich., Oct. 26, 1907.
“ Whereas B. W. Calkins, of Yenice township, and E. F. Augsbury, of the same place, have agreed to enter into the business of importing and selling high-class stallions, but said parties not being familiar with said business, therefore, they have this day hired John Crawford, of Byron, Michigan, to act as general manager in buying and selling said horses (the financial end of said business *589to be looked after and controlled by said Calkins and Augsbury).…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCulsky v. KlostermanOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Nebraska National Bank v. PennockNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Beakley v. RobertMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Morrow v. MurphyMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by6 opinions
- Central Nat. Bank of San Angelo v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Neeson v. Sangamon County Mining Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1925
- Boradori v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Robb v. MoffettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Gillean v. Benn&201tt, Tarlton Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.