Legal Opinion
Crawford v. Cicotte
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 7, 1916No. Docket No. 26PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Error to Wayne; Codd, J. Assumpsit by Samuel Crawford against Edward A. Cicotte and another for breach of a contract in the nature of an option. Judgment for defendant on a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, C. J.
Defendants authorized the plaintiff to sell a certain piece of land by the execution of the following written contract:
“Detroit, Mich., Feb. 28, 1911.
“I hereby authorize Samuel Crawford, Jr., of the city of Detroit, Wayne county, Michigan, an option on the following described property for one year from the date thereof. Expires February 23, 1912.
“Property described as follows, to wit:
“As lot numbered No. 9 (nine), being on the north side of Jefferson Ave., formerly River St. being 487 50/100 feet on said road, 166 feet on Rouge river also being 232 14/100 feet on the westerly boundary line of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Axe v. TolbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Burrell v. New York & Saginaw Solar Salt Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Atkinson v. MorseMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Fell v. NewberryMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Wright v. BeachMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ladd v. TeichmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
- Powers v. Security Savings & Trust Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Pittelkow v. Jefferson Park Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Calka v. DonahoeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
- Davis v. BoydCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.