Hirschmann v. Iron Range & Huron Bay Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Marquette. (Stone, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.
Plaintiffs sue to recover for supplies furnished to parties engaged in the construction of defendant’s road, upon the claim that the goods were supplied upon orders given by an alleged agent of the company, one *387Milo Davis, and upon the company's credit. The plaintiffs had judgment, and defendant appeals.
The principal question arises as to the authority of the agent to bind the company. The defendant company was organized June 30, 1890. The capital stock was fixed at $500,000. But $25,000 of the stock was subscribed at the date of the incorporation. Of this' amount C. H. Buhl took $10,000, and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bank of United States v. DandridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Perkins v. Washington InsuranceCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
- Ceeder v. H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Bridenbecker v. LowellNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Whitaker v. KilroyMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Miskiewicz v. SmolenskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Marx v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Mally v. Excelsior Wrapper Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Cox v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1897
- Cope-Swift Co. v. John Schlaff Creamery Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.