Caspar Hoffman Co. v. King

Michigan Supreme Court

Caspar Hoffman Co. v. King

237 Mich. 9

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1926

DocketDocket No. 127

StatusPublished

This text of 237 Mich. 9 (Caspar Hoffman Co. v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caspar Hoffman Co. v. King, 237 Mich. 9 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Sharpe, J.

Defendant King gave a firm of brokers a written authorization to purchase certain land for him, and in the same instrument authorized them to sell it for him at an advanced price. The purchase was made. The brokers then secured an offer in-writing from plaintiff to purchase at the advanced price and accepted it in writing as attorneys in fact for defendants. Claiming that a contract, binding upon defendants, was thereby made, plaintiff here seeks its specific performance. The acceptance of plaintiff’s offer by the brokers did not bind the de[10]*10fendants. Landskroener v. Henning, 221 Mich. 558.

The decree dismissing the bill is affirmed, with costs to appellees.

Bird, C. J., and Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred. Snow and Clark, J.J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sharpe, J.

Defendant King gave a firm of brokers a written authorization to purchase certain land for him, and in the same instrument authorized them to sell it for him at an advanced price. The purchase was made. The brokers then secured an offer in-writing from plaintiff to purchase at the advanced price and accepted it in writing as attorneys in fact for defendants. Claiming that a contract, binding upon defendants, was thereby made, plaintiff here seeks its specific performance. The acceptance of plaintiff’s offer by the brokers did not bind the de[10]*10fendants. Landskroener v. Henning, 221 Mich. 558.

The decree dismissing the bill is affirmed, with costs to appellees.

Bird, C. J., and Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred. Snow and Clark, J.J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 Mich. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caspar-hoffman-co-v-king-mich-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack