Legal Opinion

Kendrick v. Hochradel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1911No. Docket No. 92PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wexford; Lamb, J. Assumpsit by Eugene 0. Kendrick against Charles Hochradel for the purchase price of a horse. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.

This is an action of assumpsit for the purchase price of a horse which the plaintiff claims to have sold and delivered to the defendant. The facts in the case are much in dispute. The plaintiff claims that on September 7, 1909, the defendant came to the village of Mesick to buy a team of western horses from the plaintiff, and that, not knowing a great deal about horses, or at least desiring the assistance of some one, the defendant brought with him one Newman, to pick out and take charge of such horses as he might purchase; that defendant and Newman, with others, went with the agent of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wilkinson v. Detroit Steel & Spring WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Hirschmann v. Iron Range & Huron Bay RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  3. State ex rel. Lull v. FrizzellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
  4. Schweider v. LangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
  5. Alderton v. BuchozMichigan Supreme Court · 1854

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mangelsdorf Bros. Co. v. KolpSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  2. Bowen v. ChandlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API