Legal Opinion

Wickstrand v. Nelson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1935No. Docket No. 53, Calendar No. 38,401PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.

The fact that Nelson was agent of Albert E. Pierce & Company did not prevent his being also agent of defendant Michigan Fuel & Light Company in selling the stock. The company was actively and energetically promoting’ sale of the stock to its customers and the public, not only to aid its parent in obtaining money but also to create a local good will interest in itself. Its advertisement urged purchase of “our stock” and referred the public to itself, Pierce & Company, or “our employees” for information. It received checks in payment of stock, in dorsed and cashed them, and remitted by its own…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Barth v. KlicperaMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Wardowski v. Guardian Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,731 David B. Charney, Allen J. Kraft, Harris J. Klein and Charles N. Maybruck v. Donald D. Thomas, Ira A. Lutz and Loyd GibsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1967
  2. Kirkland v. EF Hutton and Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1983
  3. Republic National Bank of Dallas v. WhittenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1964
  4. People v. MontagueMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Montcalm County Board of Commissioners v. McDonald & Co. Securities, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API