Legal Opinion
Niagara Falls Brewing Co. v. Wall
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 22, 1893PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Error to Saginaw. (Gage, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
On May 7, 1891, defendant wrote plaintiff, requesting the agency of the city of Saginaw and vicinity for the sale of plaintiff’s beer. May 11 plaintiff wrote, accepting defendant’s offer, in the following language:
“In regard to’ your request to give you the agency for our beer for your city and the vicinity, as we are very willing to do so, and not to sell it to anybody else as long as you are handling the same with good advantage, and you promptly fill the agreement to pay for the first car when *159you are ordering the second, and so on. We, on our part, will pay great pains to send to you…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Deering v. ChapmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1843
- Loranger v. JardineMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by13 opinions
- Edward v. IoorMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Shattuck v. WatsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Maurer v. Greening Nursery Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Ashley & Rumelin v. BradyIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Walhier v. WeberMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.