Legal Opinion

Buckingham v. Tyler

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1889PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Oceana. (Dickerman,, J.) Trover. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

In this case the plaintiff, a resident of' Zanesville, Ohio, claims to have exchanged a farm in Delaware county, in that state, for a stock of goods owned by Harvey Cockell, at Mears, in Oceana county, Mich. The contract between the parties will be found in the opinion filed by the Chief Justice. It is an unusual one in some respects, and it is noticeable that the agent ■of Buckingham delivered his deed of a farm valued at-$17,800 to Mr. and Mrs. Cockell for a stock of goods 1m had never seen, and to parties of whose responsibility he knew little or nothing, before the key of the store was…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kovich v. Church & Church, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Johnston v. SpoonheimNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Rauh v. MorrisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
  4. Maziroff v. Commercial BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API