Bachler v. Maytag Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtNobth, J.
Because of an alleged fraud, plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages against the Maytag Company, an Iowa corporation, and also against the Maytag Company, a Delaware corporation. Service of the declaration was made on one Fred G-. Longstaff, who was referred to in the return of service as “defendant named in said declaration.” As a matter of fact Longstaff was not the defendant, but instead he was the district manager of the Maytag Sales Corporation, which was also organized under the laws of Delaware. Defendants entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the cause on the ground…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Matthews v. Montreal Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Malooly v. York Heating & Ventilating Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Hellman v. LaddMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
- National Concessions, Inc. v. National Circus CorporationsMichigan Supreme Court · 1956