Legal Opinion

Wolfram v. Shifflet, Cumber & Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 1928No. Docket No. 87, Calendar No. 33,816PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

Plaintiff contracted with Detroit Transmission Company, a corporation, to buy shares of its capital stock, both common and preferred, and did buy them. The agent of the corporation in making the sales was defendant, Shifflet, Cumber & Company, a corporation. Plaintiff, for averred fraud, decided to rescind. He gave notice of rescission and made tender to defendant, the agent, and not to the principal with whom he had contracted. He brought this suit against the agent and not against the principal. The theory of recovery in the trial was rescission. Plaintiff had judgment for the amount paid…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rott v. GoldmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Bentley v. Shifflet, Cumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Grandi v. LeSageNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Mesh v. CitrinMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Hafner v. A. J. Stuart Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Dewitt v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API