Legal Opinion

Pierce v. Cooley

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1885PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error to Ingham. (Gridley, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

This suit was brought to recover the price of a spoke-dressing machine, which plaintiffs claim was purchased by defendants, but which they claim they held merely on trial, when it was accidentally destroyed by fire. The machine had been in their wagon-shop in Lansing, and partially tried, prior to December, 1883, but had not worked well. Plaintiff wished them to give it a further trial with a different method of gearing, which would make it work better. A written instrument was signed by both parties, whereby defendants agreed to take it if it worked to their satisfaction, and to pay for it…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Walter A. Wood Reaping & Mowing Machine Co. v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Sax v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Schliess v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Osborne v. FrancisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Schmand v. JandorfMichigan Supreme Court · 1913

8 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