Legal Opinion
Hansen v. Rolison
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 30, 1909No. Docket No. 25Published
Error to Montcalm; Davis, J. Assumpsit by Chris Hansen against William H. Rolison upon a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtBlair, C. J.
This case was determined by the court and at the request of the plaintiff the court made the following findings of fact and of law:
“Findings or Fact.
“ (1) On the 3d day of August, 1901, the plaintiff was acting as agent for the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, and on that day procured of the defendant a paper writing signed by the defendant, in the following words and figures, viz.:
“‘McCormick Harvesting Machine Co., Chicago, III.
“‘Gentlemen: The undersigned hereby purchases of you to be shipped on or before May 1, 1902, one of your 5-foot vertical lift mowers, including the usual…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- National Cash Register Co. v. DehnMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. CusackMichigan Supreme Court · 1898