Legal Opinion
Osius v. Hinchman
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided January 6, 1908No. Docket No. 90PublishedCited by 10 opinions
Appeal from Muskegon; Sessions, J. Bill by Frederick Osius against Frank B. Hinchman to enjoin defendant from entering into business contrary to the terms of a contract. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtMoAlvay, J.
Complainant’s assignor, a firm composed of himself and' others, which was engaged in the business of general dentistry in several cities in Michigan, including the city of Muskegon, on July 2, 1904, entered into the following agreement in writing with the defendant who was a practicing dentist:
“Memorandum of agreement, made and entered into this 2nd day of July, A. D. 1904, by and between the Gratiot Dental Company, a copartnership of and with its head and main office at Detroit, Michigan, party of the first part, and Dr. F. Hinchman, of Port Huron, party of the second part.
“ Whereas, said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beal v. ChaseMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- H. W. Gossard Co. v. CrosbySupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
3Cited by10 opinions
- Arthur Murray Dance Studios of Cleveland, Inc. v. WitterCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1952
- Menter Co. v. BrockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Love v. Miami Laundry Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1934
- Eureka Laundry Co. v. LongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Miller v. Chicago Portrait Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.