Legal Opinion

Aspinwall Manufacturing Co. v. Johnson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1893PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, C. J.

On November 15, 1890, the parties to this suit made the following agreement:

“This agreement, made and entered into this 15th day of November, 1890, by and between the Aspinwall Manufacturing Company, of Three Rivers, Michigan, of the first part, and Robert Johnson, of Cadillac, Wexford county, Michigan, of the second part, Witnesseth, that the said Aspinwall Manufacturing Company have this day appointed the party of the second part to act as agent for the sale of their Aspinwall potato-planter, attachments, and extras, for the season of 1891, in the following territory, and no other, to wit,…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Arbuckle Bros. v. Gates & BrownSupreme Court of Virginia · 1898
  2. Norwegian Plow Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
  3. De Kruif v. FliemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1902

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API