Wilkinson v. Powe
Michigan Supreme Court
1 N.W.2d 539 (1942)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Jay D. Wilkinson (plaintiff) brought suit against Powe (defendant) and Powe’s company, Shamrock Creamery (Shamrock) (defendant) for wrongfully procuring a breach of Wilkinson’s contract with milk farmers. Wilkinson had established two routes for hauling milk from farmers to two creameries, Shamrock and Pontiac. Later, Wilkinson and the farmers memorialized their arrangement by a written agreement. Shortly after the execution of the agreement, Powe informed Wilkinson that he wanted to take over one of the routes and, in exchange, offered Wilkinson the trade-in value of his truck and a position at Shamrock. Wilkinson refused. Subsequently, Powe sent a letter to the farmers doing business with Wilkinson that Shamrock would no longer accept milk if it was delivered by Wilkinson. Eventually, Wilkinson was forced to abandon his milk routes. Afterwards, Shamrock hauled the milk of nearly all farmers formerly under contract with Wilkinson. A jury found for Wilkinson and awarded $4,000 in damages. Thereafter, a new trial was granted and the trial judge entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding “[t]o find for the plaintiff is a sympathetic attempt to give legal security to one, who, in a precarious position acted unwisely.”
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bushnell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
