Leo Austrian & Co. v. Springer
Michigan Supreme Court
- Error to Kent. (Adsit, J:) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.
Plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing furniture at Chicago, 111., and defendant is a manufacturer of looking-glass plates at Euerth, Bavaria. On the 21st of March, 1890, one Frank 0. Fitton called at plaintiff’s office; gave to plaintiff’s manager a card as agent ■ of defendant; “ said he came to sell me German looking- ■ glass plates for importation; that he was selling for defend*346ant, — and quoted prices;” and after some negotiations plaintiff signed a written order drawn up by Fitton, which is as follows:
“ [Letter heading of Leo Austrian & Co.]
“ Chicago, March 21, 1890.
“Nathan Springer,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Home Life Insurance v. PierceIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Griggs v. SeldenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
- Kessler v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Banner Tobacco Co. v. JenisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Inglish v. AyerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Grinnell v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Kilborn v. Prudential InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Miller v. Germain Seed & Plant Co.California Supreme Court · 1924
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. MoonMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Marx v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.