White Pine Lumber Co. v. Manufacturers' Lumber Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; McDonald, J., presiding. Assumpsit by the White Pine Lumber Company, a corporation, against the Manufacturers’ Lumber Company, a corporation, and another, for the price of certain lumber. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. In March, 1911, plaintiff made two contracts with the Manufacturers’ Lumber Company, one of the defendants, for the sale and delivery of certain lumber to that company.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; McDonald, J., presiding. Assumpsit by the White Pine Lumber Company, a corporation, against the Manufacturers’ Lumber Company, a corporation, and another, for the price of certain lumber. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. In March, 1911, plaintiff made two contracts with the Manufacturers’ Lumber Company, one of the defendants, for the sale and delivery of certain lumber to that company. One of these contracts was for the sale of the culls that had been cut at plaintiff’s mill on Blind river, Ontario, during the year 1910, and the other was for the sale of such…
1Opinion of the CourtPerson, J.
(after stating the facts). The controversy between the parties relates principally to the alleged rescission of the contract as to the undelivered culls. Such rescission, if it took place, grew out of a conversation over the telephone between Fred H. Yeomans, then vice president and general manager of the Yeomans-Diver Company, and Daniel E. Wells, vice president of the plaintiff company, and in charge of its Detroit business. The authority of these gentlemen to bind their respective companies to such rescission is not questioned, nor is the fact denied that they had the conversation referred…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Murray v. . HarwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Dial v. CrainTexas Supreme Court · 1853
- Johnson v. ReedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Blood v. EnosSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- Green v. Robert Wells & Co.California Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by3 opinions
- Utilities Insurance v. StuartNebraska Supreme Court · 1938
- United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Air Comfort, Inc., and Cross-Defendant v. Jones Coal Company, and Cross-PlaintiffCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1963
- Gaval v. WojtowyczMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968