Legal Opinion

Bond v. Pontiac, Oxford & Port Austin Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1886PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Error to Lapeer. (Stickney, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

Plaintiff sued and recovered against ■defendant on an alleged' verbal contract made with F. B. Howard as chief engineer, whereby plaintiff was to have the building of fourteen depot buildings, for which lie made preparation, but which, as he claims, he was not allowed to ■complete. Defendant denies any such contract relations. It was claimed by defendant, and shown by testimony in no way impugned (although the jury without any evidence found otherwise), that the whole building and equipment of ■the railroad had been put under contract with the New York, New England & Western Investment…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Trudo v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Hotchin v. KentMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
  3. Peek v. Detroit Novelty WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Michigan Paneling Machine & Manufacturing Co. v. ParsellMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  5. Wells v. MartinMichigan Supreme Court · 1875

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hayes v. ColemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Alexander v. Ala. Wes. R. R.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  3. Chamberlain v. the Amalgamated Sugar Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Joslyn v. Cadillac Automobile Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
  5. Tacoma Eastern Railroad v. SmithgallWashington Supreme Court · 1910

10 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