Legal Opinion

Wilbur v. Stoepel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1890PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

This suit was brought upon the following written agreement:

“ In consideration of the undertakings of DeWitt E. Wilbur, in connection of the Stoepel Lumber Company, ( and as part of the contract for the sale of $10,000 of the j capital stock of said company by us to him, we hereby j •agree that if at the end of two years he decides to with- j ■draw from said company we will repurchase the stock he j buys of us, or so much of it as he may then have, for l ■cash, at 80 per cent, of its par value; and if at any time j during the first two years the said company dispenses l with his services we…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Seymour v. Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Glass v. Basin & Bay State Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Timme v. KopmeierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Leland v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Scripps v. SweeneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Gillette v. Newhouse Realty Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1929

16 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