Legal Opinion
D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Bell
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1886PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error to Hillsdale. (Howell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion and head-notes.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
The plaintiff is a corporation orgaiiized under the laws of the State of New York, and on the thirteenth day of March, 1883, was doing business in this State.
Its business was making and vending a farm implement known as the “ Osborne Harvesting-machine,” used for cutting and binding wheat. At that date it had an agent for the sale of its machine at North Adams, in the county of Hillsdale, who had his place of business at that place, and whose name was Knowles.
The company’s home office was at Auburn, New York. It also had a branch office at Cleveland, Ohio.
On the said thirteenth day of March,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thompson v. RichardsMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
- Gage v. MeyersMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sharples Separator Co. v. SkinnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Livingston v. Reid-Hart Parr Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
- Watkins v. PhelpsMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Stone v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1974