Legal Opinion

Whittlesey v. Herbrand Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1922No. Docket No. 4PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Error to Wayne; Weimer (George V.), J., presiding. Assumpsit by Henry T. Whittlesey against the Her-brand Company for commissions on the sale of certain forgings. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

Plaintiff, while in the employ of defendant, had solicited business from the Lincoln Motor Company. On October 3,1917, the defendant received two orders direct from that company, one for “46,000 cylinder elbow exhaust forgings” and the other for “46,000 cylinder elbow inlet forgings.” The price of each kind was the same. On November 16, 1917, defendant, by its sales manager, advised plaintiff by letter of its desire to terminate his employment. In it defendant indicated a willingness to allow plaintiff a commission of 21/2 per cent, on “the order from the Lincoln Motor Company specifying…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Donlon Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Short v. Van DykeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  3. Conner v. Manchester Assur. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
  4. Cary v. Holt's Ex'orsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1917
  5. Rorabacher v. LeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1867

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Foremost Insurance v. Allstate InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Forge v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Detroit Trust Co. v. BakerMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Culver v. CastroMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Industrial Commission v. Arizona Power Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931

14 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