Legal Opinion

Zimmerman Manufacturing Co. v. Dolph

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1895PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Calhoun. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

Plaintiff sold to the defendant a windmill called the “Monarch.” The contract was in writing, dated August 28, 1888, and is as follows:

“ Zimmerman Mfg. Co., Established 1874, Incorporated 1886, Auburn, Indiana:
“Ship to me on or before Sept. 10,.1888, or as soon as possible thereafter, to Homer, via the cheapest R. R., the following list of articles, at prices opposite each, and erect at your earliest convenience:

1 ten-foot Monarch wind engine...................§80 00

1 thirty-foot derrick, upper platform and brackets. 15 00

1 improved lift pump standard No.............

1 2|xl0 brass-lined…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. CrandallMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Turner v. Muskegon Machine & Foundry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. H. W. Williams Transportation Line v. Darius Cole Transportation Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Hall v. HodgdonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1944
  3. D. M. Osborne & Co. v. WigentMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Electrical Appliance Co. v. Standard Electric Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
  5. J. C. Boss Engineering Co. v. Gunderson Brick & Tile Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926

4 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