Legal Opinion

Mueller v. Bethesda Mineral Spring Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1891PublishedCited by 32 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

Plaintiffs intestate had been in the drug business in the city of Detroit for some years, and for a year before the making of the alleged contract sued upon had been selling Bethesda Mineral Spring water, purchased from defendant. In October, 1887, defendant wrote to plaintiffs intestate the following letter:

“Waukesha, Wis., Oct. 3, 1887.
“Mr. J. C. Mueller,
“Detroit, Mich.
“ Dear Sir: Inclosed find bill and B. of L. for water sent to-day. Our traveling man, J. R. Smith, has informed us of your proposition, which we have considered, and have decided to make you the following offer, which we…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Loud v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Wood v. . Duff-GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  2. Emerson v. Pacific Coast & Norway Packing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
  3. Paige v. . FaureNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  4. Hichhorn, Mack & Co. v. BradleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  5. Spencer Medicine Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906

27 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