Legal Opinion

R. C. Mahon Co. v. Molin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1930No. Docket No. 86, Calendar No. 35,247PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.

Plaintiff sold to defendant Jacob Molin goods on an open account. Defendants claim that some of the articles purchased from plaintiff were unsatisfactory. There was an unpaid balance due plaintiff on December 14, 1926, amounting to $5,340. On that day plaintiff’s representative called upon defendant and obtained from him $1,340 to apply on account, thus leaving a balance of $4,000. Defendant Molin claims that as a result of an agreement between himself and plaintiff’s representative this balance at the time of the payment was converted into an account stated which was not to become due and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Metcalf v. BarkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Hill v. HardingSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  3. National Surety Co. v. MedlockCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  4. Alvaton Mercantile Co. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  5. Brown & Brown Coal Co. v. AntezakMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. Sunset Ditch Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Industrial Coordinators, Inc. v. Artco, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Properties v. Hudson Oil Co. of United States, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  4. L. J. Barry Coal Co. v. HoughtenMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Gregorian Building Co. v. GalvinMichigan Supreme Court · 1934

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API