Legal Opinion

Thick v. Detroit, Utica & Romeo Railway

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1904No. Docket No. 204PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. ' Assumpsit by Joseph A. Thick against the Detroit, Utica & Romeo Railway for breach of a contract to purchase certain ties. There was judgment for plaintiff, and ■defendant brings error. The contract, for the breach of which this suit is .'brought, is evidenced by the following writings: “Detroit, Mich., March 14, 1900. '“J. A. Thick.

Read the full summary

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. ' Assumpsit by Joseph A. Thick against the Detroit, Utica & Romeo Railway for breach of a contract to purchase certain ties. There was judgment for plaintiff, and ■defendant brings error. The contract, for the breach of which this suit is .'brought, is evidenced by the following writings: “Detroit, Mich., March 14, 1900. '“J. A. Thick. “ Dear Sir: We will take seventeen thousand (17,000) cedar ties, to be delivered on the M. C. R. R. at Center Line, North Detroit, or Belt Line, as we may hereafter • direct. Price for No. 1 standard cedar ties forty-one cents (41).…

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. The declaration alleges a contract to buy of plaintiff, the ties to be delivered by him to defendant at Detroit, and to be paid for on delivery; the promise on the part of the defendant to accept and receive them; plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to carry out the contract; and the refusal by the defendant to accept the ties selected by him in accordance with the agreement, and consequent loss of profits. The plea was the general issue. Upon the trial defendant objected to the admission of any evidence, for the reason that the declaration did not state a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pope v. AllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  2. Rowland v. Superintendents of the PoorMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Whitney v. McLeanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ten Broeck Tyre Co. v. Rubber Trading Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
  2. Hunter Bros. Milling Co. v. StanleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  3. Roaring Fork Potato Growers v. C. C. Clemons Produce Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. Crosland v. SloanOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Lagerloef Trading Co. v. American Paper Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1923

3 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