Legal Opinion

Leo Austrian & Co. v. Springer

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1892PublishedCited by 39 opinions

- 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

  1. Home Life Insurance v. PierceIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Griggs v. SeldenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
  3. Kessler v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  4. Banner Tobacco Co. v. JenisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Inglish v. AyerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Grinnell v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Kilborn v. Prudential InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  3. Miller v. Germain Seed & Plant Co.California Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. MoonMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Marx v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

34 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