Legal Opinion
Coon v. Spaulding
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 26, 1881PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Error to Wayne. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, C. J.
As stated in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, the main question in this case is, whether „ "the plaintiffs below, defendants in error, went to Coon’s to press the hay contracted for within a reasonable time after the contract was made. The following is the written contract sued upon:
“Dearborn, Mich., Sept. 25, 1879.
“ Received from Spaulding & Rogers fifty dollars to apply •on purchase of hay, estimated at one hundred tons more or less, to be delivered at Fisher’s station, at $10 per ton, including board for men and teams, fuel for engine and men to pitcli the hay to the press. Hay…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Druse v. WheelerMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Druse v. WheelerMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Stange v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Phœnix Insurance v. AllenMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brady v. Central Excavators, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1947
- Boyington v. SweeneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- Reinforced Concrete Pipe Co. v. BoyesMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Spaulding v. CoonMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Hulse v. Michigan Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915