Legal Opinion
Kroll v. Diamond Match Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 28, 1897PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to Houghton; Hubbell, J. Assumpsit by William Kroll against the Diamond Match Company to recover the purchase pricé of land sold. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The findings of fact in this cause state that the defendant’s manager negotiated with the plaintiff for the purchase by the defendant of plaintiff’s interest in certain lands, and executed and delivered to the plaintiff a writing, reading as follows:
“Feby. 28, ’94.
“Draft for $2,000. We will- send Wm. Kroll, of Kenton, Mich., on rec’t from him of a Q. C. deed based on State T. D. of N. E. 1, and N. E. -J 23-47-40.
“D. M. Co., by J. H. Comstock, Mgr.”
After giving the said writing to plaintiff, it was agreed between him and said Comstock that the deed contemplated by said proposal should be made…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Scott v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Kelsey v. McDonaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Liddle v. NeedhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Ducett v. WolfMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Toan v. PlineMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bagaeff v. ProkopikMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Adler v. KatusMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Baker v. GlanderMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971