Cutler-Hammer Manufacturing Co. v. Phillip Gross Hardware & Supply Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
■ The following opinion was filed April 6, 1926:
Vxnje, C. J.
The validity of the requirement contract sued upon is not questioned by the defendant. That such a contract for furnishing certain material or tools for an established business for a specified time is not so uncertain or indefinite as to lack mutuality seems well established by the decisions. See 11 L. R. A. n. s. 713 and note; 43 L. R. A. n. s. 730 and note; L. R. A. 1918 E, 296 and note; Shipman v. Straitsville C. M. Co. 158 U. S. 356, 15 Sup. Ct. 886; Cold Blast T. Co. v. Kansas B. & N. Co. 114 Fed. 77, 81; 35 Cyc. 208. But it is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cold Blast Transp. Co. v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
- Shipman v. Straitsville Central Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Jung Brewing Co. v. KonradWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908