F. B. Holmes & Co. v. City of Detroit
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Murphy, J. Assumpsit by F. B. Holmes & Company against the city of Detroit for goods sold and delivered. A judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court for less than the amount claimed is reviewed by plaintiff on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAlvay, J.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant to recover for an amount claimed to be due for certain cement furnished by it under a certain agreement entered into between the parties. Defendant on January 11, 1906, through the department of public works, advertised for proposals for furnishing “ 5,000 barrels of Portland cement more or less as may be required by the department of public works from the date of contract to January 31, 1907',” *138to be delivered in sacks at a warehouse within the control of the board in a designated locality. Plaintiff tendered a proposal in writing to furnish the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brawley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Cold Blast Transp. Co. v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
- Merriam v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Marx v. American Malting Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- E. G. Dailey Co. v. Clark Can Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Simons v. Diamond Match Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
- McLouth Steel Corporation v. Jewell Coal and Coke CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1978
- Stuart v. Home Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Menominee Lumber & Cedar Co. v. ThomsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1944
- Township School District v. MacRaeMichigan Supreme Court · 1917