Legal Opinion

Whitaker v. Kilroy

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1888PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Plaintiff, who is receiver of the Granger Engine Works of Detroit (a corporation in process of voluntary dissolution and liquidation), sued .defendant for the value of a steam-engine furnished by the corporation. It appeared on the trial, and was not contradicted, that the work was done under a written contract made by Mr. Brandon, the superintendent and book-keeper; that the agreed price was $500, and that all of this price had been paid in full, in compliance with the terms of the contract.

Nevertheless plaintiff undertook to sue Kilroy for what he *637claimed to have been the actual outlay of…

2Cited by18 opinions

  1. Hirschmann v. Iron Range & Huron Bay RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Black v. Harrison Home Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Cope-Swift Co. v. John Schlaff Creamery Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Hunt v. Stromberg Motor Devices Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Constantine v. Kalamazoo Beet Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1903

13 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