Ashland Lumber Co. v. Detroit Salt Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeals from a judgment of the circuit court for'Ash-land county: JohN K. Paetsh, Circuit Judge. It appears from the record, and is undisputed, that during the times mentioned the plaintiff was a corporation created and organized under the laws of Wisconsin, having a sawmill and place of business at Ashland; that during the same times the defendant Detroit Salt Company was a corporation created and organized under the laws of Michigan, and having its principal office at…
Read the full summary
Appeals from a judgment of the circuit court for'Ash-land county: JohN K. Paetsh, Circuit Judge. It appears from the record, and is undisputed, that during the times mentioned the plaintiff was a corporation created and organized under the laws of Wisconsin, having a sawmill and place of business at Ashland; that during the same times the defendant Detroit Salt Company was a corporation created and organized under the laws of Michigan, and having its principal office at Detroit, in that states and the defendant Thompson Bros, was also a corporation created and organized under the laws of…
1Opinion of the Court
■Cassoday, C. J.
The plaintiff’s cause of action is based upon the guaranty of the defendants contained in-the contract, to the effect that the number of pieces of heading manufactured by the defendants, of the size therein mentioned, would, at pixty cents per 1,000 pieces, net the plaintiff $25 for each 200,000 feet of lumber manufactured by the plaintiff. To fulfill such guaranty, the plaintiff claims that the defendants were bound to pay for 41,667 pieces of heading for each and every 200,000 feet of lumber manufactured by *75the plaintiff. But such heading was to be manufactured from “slabs,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Hooper v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Ducat v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Liverpool Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Dunlop v. MercerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Perkins Manufacturing Co. v. Clinton Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- Allen v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. BashfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.