Turner v. Muskegon Machine & Foundry Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts-are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
Plaintiff's cause of .action is. based upon two contracts, one written, .the other verbal. The written contract consists of a proposition made by plaintiff and accepted by defendant, and is as follows:
TI. will put you up one of my oil-gas producers, complete, also one of my gas furnaces for melting pig iron, complete, on 30 days' trial, for the sum of thirty-two ($3,200) hundred dollars. This includes stack and everything ready for use. If, after 30 days' trial, it is satisfactory, you to pay me one thousand ($1,000) dollars, balance in 60 clays. I am not to put up another melting furnace in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Waters Heater Co. v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1875
- Clink v. GunnMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kerr v. National Fulton Brass Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
- State v. SmailsWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Hughes v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Marsh v. BurnhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Zimmerman Manufacturing Co. v. DolphMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.