Legal Opinion

Chase v. Buhl Iron Works

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1884PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Speed, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Plaintiff, who had done business under the firm name of T. R. Chase & Co., sued defendants (as successors of the Detroit Locomotive "Works) for a balance due for coal furnished the old company. No question was made upon the identity of the succession. The only defense was an alleged payment.

Chase proved the sale by and in the name of T. R. Chase & Co., of several items of coal at different times, and payments made by Captain R. J. Hackett, who had a wholesale coal office in the same room, and through whom the coal was ordered. A final balance appeared of $46.

The defense introduced as a…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. BuralliNevada Supreme Court · 1903
  2. People v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Eady v. Newton Coal & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  4. In re Stockdale's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Argabright v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1896

2 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