Legal Opinion

Crowl v. Goodenberger

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1897PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Hillsdale; Lane, J. Assumpsit by Jacob L. Crowl against David A. Goodenberger for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, C. J.

On October 13, 1893, the plaintiff sold to the defendant a portable sawmill, or at least entered into a contract by the terms of which defendant was to have the mill for $400 worth of beech lumber. The plaintiff took back from the defendant the following agreement, the performance of which was understood to be full payment for the mill:

“ I, D. A. Goodenberger, hereby agree to furnish Jacob L. Crowl $400 worth of beech lumber, at $12 per thousand, delivered; said lumber to be cut from merchantable logs; said lumber to be delivered within six months; lumber to be log run, one-third two-inch and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Robbins v. LuceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
  2. Vance v. BloomerNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  3. Roberts v. BeattySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830
  4. Wyman v. WinslowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Laswell v. National Handle Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. T. Wilce Co. v. Kelley Shingle Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Wheeler v. Ocker & Ford Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  4. William H. Rose & Co. v. CawoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API