Legal Opinion

Challenge Wind & Feed Mill Co. v. Kerr

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1892PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Tuscola. (Beach, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

The defendant gave an order to the plaintiff for a windmill, at the price of $125. The order was in writing, signed by the defendant, and delivered to the plaintiff’s agent at Millington, this State, and by the agent forwarded to the plaintiff at Batavia, 111. The order was dated May 16, 1890, and contained the following clause:

“This order is not subject to countermand. No verbal understanding with agents to affect this order, all conditions under which same is given being specified herein. All orders subject to the approval of Challenge Wind & Feed Mill Company.”

This order was forwarded to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wilcox v. ClineMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. B. T. Moran, Inc. v. First Security Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Peck v. FreeseMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Night Commander Lighting Co. v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Lloyd & Elliott, Inc. v. ParkeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
  5. J. B. Colt Co. v. ElamSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924

2 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