Legal Opinion

Talbot Paving Co. v. Gorman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1894PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

Tbe plaintiff contracted with the defendant for the delivery f. o. b., Detroit, of a quantity of Medina paving stone, the same to answer the requirements of Detroit specifications, of which defendant had a copy. The contract was made by correspondence. At request of defendant, the plaintiff advanced $2,500 upon the contract, and afterwards made other payments, leaving a balance of $1,338.47. The requisite amount of stone was shipped to Detroit, where it was unloaded, and used by the plaintiff upon its paving jobs, upon which it was at work. It is claimed upon its behalf that the stone did not…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Pierson v. . CrooksNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Gurney v. Atlantic & Great Western Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
  3. Lewis v. W. D. Rountree & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  4. Polhemus v. HeimanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  5. Babcock v. TriceIllinois Supreme Court · 1857

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Williams v. RobbMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Brown v. HarrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Buick Motor Co. v. Reid Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Columbus & Hocking Coal & Iron Co. v. SeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Gill & Co. v. National Gaslight Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912

8 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