Legal Opinion
McIntyre v. E. Bement's Sons
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 1, 1906No. Docket No. 82PublishedCited by 27 opinions
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by D. Harold McIntyre against E. Bement’s Sons, Detroit Trust Company, receiver, for breach of agreement to repurchase certain corporate stock. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
A verdict and judgment for defendant were directed by the trial court, pursuant to a stipulation of counsel that the jury be discharged and the case disposed of as the court should find the law to be. The action is assumpsit for damages for breach of an agreement which reads:
“D. Harold McIntyre,
“ Dear Sir: We agree two years from Jany. 1st, 1902, at your option to buy from you the preferred and common stock which we have this day sold you for .the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, the amount you paid for it.
“Yours truly,
“ E. Bement’s Sons.
“ By Edwin J. Bement, Asst. Secy.”
This instrument…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Vent v. Duluth Coffee & Spice Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Wisconsin Lumber Co. v. Greene & Western Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Melvin v. Lamar InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Olmstead v. Vance & Jones Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1902
- American Steel & Wire Co. v. EddyMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- In re Fechheimer Fisher Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Topken, Loring & Schwartz, Inc. v. SchwartzNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- SV Investment Partners, LLC v. Thoughtworks, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2010
- Kennerly v. Columbia Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1923
- Hoover Steel Ball Co. v. Schaefer Ball Bearings Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1919
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.