Legal Opinion
Butler v. Foley
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided September 30, 1920No. Docket No. 4PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Error to Wayne; Codd (George P.), J. Assumpsit by A. E. Butler, doing business as A. E. Butler & Co., against J. William Foley for breach of a contract for the sale of certain corporate stock. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
This is an action for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract to deliver certain stock. The contract is based upon three telegrams, as follows:
(Exhibit B.)
“Western Union Telegram, Chicago, 111.
“September 19th, 1916.
“Received 3 P. M.
“J. William Foley,
“Wyandotte, Mich.
“We bid hundred fifty-two firm immediate acceptance fifty By-Products. Wire confirmation.
“A. E. Butler & Co.
“Charge Acc’t.
“JAB
“1 P. M
*670(Exhibit C.)
“Western Union Telegram, Chicago, 111.
“1916, Sept. 20, P. M.
"12:33
“a249H 12 Coll
“Sibley, Mich., 1020A
“A. E. Butler & Co.,
“La Salle St., Chicago, 111.
“Your bid one five two…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Trevor v. . WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Durkee v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Wilson v. Minneapolis & Northwestern RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Johnson v. Federal Union Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Purrington v. GrimmSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Greater Bloomfield Real Estate Co. v. BraunMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- Athol Manfg. Co. v. Briscoe Motor Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923