Harrington-Wiard Co. v. Blomstrom Manufacturing Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Murfin, J. Assumpsit by the Harrington-Wiard Company against the Blomstrom Manufacturing Company for breach of a contract. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
This is an action of assumpsit brought to recover damages for the breach of two contracts made by the parties, as hereinafter stated.
On the 9th of April, 1908, the defendant was engaged in the manufacture of automobiles. It entered into contract with the plaintiff company, which was a contracting machinist. By and under the terms of this contract the plaintiff was to build and construct 25 two-cylinder Gyroscope motors for the defendant for the sum of $2,412.50. It was to furnish all the materials and workmanship for the engines, with the exception of crank shafts, connecting rods, valves,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chandler v. AllisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- Tradesman Co. v. Superior Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
- American Paper-Bag Co. v. Van NortwickCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1892
- Illinois Car & Equipment Co. v. Linstroth Wagon Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1902
- Talley v. CourterMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Imperial Hotels Corporation v. Arthur P. Dore Jay Ambe Corporation and Dore Development Company, Mainstream Capital CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- City Nat. Bank of Huron, SD v. FullerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- George Realty Co. v. Gulf Refining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Cooper Grocery Co. v. StrangeTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
- Epworth Assembly v. Ludington & Northern RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.