Legal Opinion

Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Cullaton

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1892PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Livingston. (Person, J.) Replevin. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

January 18, 1890, plaintiff, through its agent at Howell, Mich., sold to the. defendant’s husband *640the sewing-machine here in controversy. The price was $55, and as part payment plaintiff received an old sewing-machine at the agreed price of $17.50. Mr. Oullaton gave his promissory note for the balance, payable April 1, 1891. It was specified in the note that it was received as a conditional settlement for the machine, and subject to the approval of the plaintiff at Chicago, 111. The machine was delivered, and was used in defendant's family until it was taken from her under the writ of…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Board of Revenue v. MerrillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  2. Cunningham v. BrictsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Schaupeter v. SchaupeterMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Columbia Rolling Mill Co. v. Beckett Foundry & Machine Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
  5. Parsons v. KimmelMichigan Supreme Court · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API