Harvester King Co. v. Mitchell, Lewis & Staver Co.
Decision Date | 25 August 1898 |
Parties | HARVESTER KING CO. v. MITCHELL, LEWIS & STAVER CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
J. R Stoddard and E. B. Watson, for plaintiff.
Idleman & Webster and Dolph, Mallory & Simon, for defendant.
This action arises out of a contract between the Craver & Steele Manufacturing Company and the defendant. The plaintiff company has succeeded to the rights of the former company under the contract. By this contract the Craver & Steele Manufacturing Company appointed the defendant company their agent for the sale of their harvesting machines in the states of Oregon and Washington and Northern Idaho, for a 'term ending December 31, 1893.' The defendant company accepted the appointment and agency, and agreed--
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Houser v. Hobart
... ... Lewis County. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge ... Action ... ( Penniman v ... Hartshorn, 13 Mass. 87; Mitchell v. LaFollett, ... 38 Ore. 178, 63 P. 54; Johnson v ... ( Arnold v. Scharbauer, 116 F. 492; ... Harvester King Co. v. Mitchell, Lewis & Staver Co., ... 89 F. 173; ... ...
-
McCombs v. McClelland
...not bind one of the parties is performed by such party on demand made by the other, it becomes obligatory. See Harvester King Co. v. Mitchell, Lewis & Staver Co., C.C., 89 F. 173. But an examination of the cases relating to employment agreements of this type indicates that when contracts ha......
-
Keopple v. National Wagonstock Company
... ... "By ... F. L. Mitchell, President ... "B ... A. Keopple, ... ...
-
Abba v. Smyth
...bound in the first instance, which will give the agreement mutuality and a consideration. Jones v. Snow, 2 P. R., 29; Harvesting King Co. v. Mitchell, et al., 89 F. 173; Bloom v. Hazard, 37 P. (Cal.), 1037; Reedy Smith, 42 Cal. 250; Boyd v. Brincklin, 55 Cal. 427; Brooks v. Leathers, 70 N.W......