Riverside Iron Works v. Hall
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Rússell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
The plaintiff in this case is a corporation, located at Wheeling, West Virginia.
In 1883 a corporation, located at Crystal Falls, in this State, known as the Great Western Iron Company, was engaged in mining iron ore in the vicinity of that place. The defendant was president of the company, and the plaintiff had an agent at the same time located at Chicago, whose name was Frederick K. Bowes. The plaintiff’s business was the manufacture of iron and nails.
In 1883 the defendant bargained with the agent of th& *167plaintiff at Chicago to ship to the Great Western Iron Company, at Crystal Falls, a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Witherby v. MannNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Hotchin v. SecorMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
- Sears Administrator v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1851
- Gardner v. GorhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1844
- Burton v. WellsMississippi Supreme Court · 1856
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Matta v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Riner v. Southwestern Surety Ins.Oregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Thum v. WolstenholmeUtah Supreme Court · 1900
- Haggerty v. MacGregorMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
- State v. ChambersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.