Humphrey v. Eddy Transportation Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; LilMbridge, J. Assumpsit by Moses W. Humphrey against the Eddy Transportation Company for a commission on the sale of boats. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. The facts in this case are substantially conceded, and arc well and accurately stated in the appellant's brief as follows: “This is 'am action brought to recover a commission claimed on the sale of boats.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; LilMbridge, J. Assumpsit by Moses W. Humphrey against the Eddy Transportation Company for a commission on the sale of boats. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. The facts in this case are substantially conceded, and arc well and accurately stated in the appellant's brief as follows: “This is 'am action brought to recover a commission claimed on the sale of boats. The vessels were the John F. Eddy and the John Shaw, and were sold by the defendant company to the Detroit Dry-Dock Company on February 27,1892, for the consideration lof $118,750. On the same day…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). The plaintiff was the genera] manager, a director and stockholder in, and secretary of the Sulphite Transportation Company, which was the actual purchaser of these boats. The Detroit Dry-Dock Company was only the nominal purchaser, the mere conduit through which the purchase was made by, and the title passed to, the Sulphite Company. -Plaintiff testified that he informed his (the Sulphite) company that the boats were cheap at $120,000, and that early in the negotiations the Detroit Dry-Dock Company offered the Sulphite Company, through plaintiff, a bonus of $5,000…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rice v. WoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- People ex rel. Plugger v. Township Board of OverysselMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
- Wadsworth v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Scribner v. CollarMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Brock v. BarnesNew York Supreme Court · 1863
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kingsley Associates, Inc., Cross-Appellee. v. Del-Met, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Hogle v. MeyeringMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Mees v. GrewerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
- Sweeney & Moore, Inc. v. ChapmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Hannan v. PrentisMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.