Legal Opinion
Cunningham v. Hawkins
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided November 11, 1910No. Docket No. 41PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to Grand Traverse; Mayne, J. Assumpsit by Francis 0. Cunningham, Charles Christianson, Ellsworth S. Ellis and William M. Thomas, co-partners as the Nickel Plate Fence Company, against Otis Hawkins and Jane Hawkins on a bond. A judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiffs on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.
This is an action upon a written instrument set out in full in the declaration as follows:
“For that, whereas, the defendant Otis Hawkins, heretofore, to wit, April 10, 1908, desired to act as agent for the Nickel Plate Fence Company of Manistee, Mich., a corporation organized under the laws of this State, and to that end purchased of and from the said Nickel Plate Fence Company such of its fencing and supplies as he would need or require for sale or use, at wholesale rates, *319and on credit for short periods on each order for such products sent in to said corporation by him, and the said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fowler v. HoffmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Comstock v. TaggartMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. MardenOregon Supreme Court · 1936
- Armstrong v. WaltonMississippi Supreme Court · 1913
- Reichert v. Nashville State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1934