Reid v. Diamond Plate-Glass Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. This is an action in assumpsit to recover a balance due on the purchase price of a quantity of plate glass sold and delivered by defendant in error to plaintiff in error. The contract of sale was in writing, duly executed April 19, 1&94, and was for 50,000 feet of plate glass, subsequently increased by-written contract to GO,000 feet.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. This is an action in assumpsit to recover a balance due on the purchase price of a quantity of plate glass sold and delivered by defendant in error to plaintiff in error. The contract of sale was in writing, duly executed April 19, 1&94, and was for 50,000 feet of plate glass, subsequently increased by-written contract to GO,000 feet. The actual quantity delivered appears to have been 57,000 feet. The sale was for future delivery, and the time of delivery was by agreement extended on two separate dates,…
1Opinion of the CourtClark, District Judge
Error is assigned on the court’s ruling in excluding evidence offered to show that it was a part of the original contract that defendant was to have any reduction in prices before delivery, although this was not embraced in the writing. The Michigan statute of frauds contains two separate sections which affect the questions here presented, — the one specifically, and the other generally. They are as follows:
“No contract for the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise, for the price of fifty dollars or more shall be valid, unless the purchaser shall accept and receive part of the goods sold,…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Barnard v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Williams v. MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- De Witt v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Metcalf v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Gault v. StormontMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Continental Oil Co. v. BellMontana Supreme Court · 1933
- Montgomery v. Ætna Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Caflisch v. HumbleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
- Hanlon v. HayesIllinois Supreme Court · 1949
- American Guaranty Co. v. American Fidelity Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.