Godkin v. Obenauer
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Bay; Maxwell, J. Assumpsit by John Godkin against Henry G. Obenauer and another for failure to make a proper inspection of plaintiff’s lumber. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff was a lumberman, and had upon the docks at his mill in Schoolcraft county piles of lumber ready for shipment. It was the custom to sell lumber in Chicago according to the certificates of inspection as to both quality and amount.
Read the full summary
Error to Bay; Maxwell, J. Assumpsit by John Godkin against Henry G. Obenauer and another for failure to make a proper inspection of plaintiff’s lumber. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff was a lumberman, and had upon the docks at his mill in Schoolcraft county piles of lumber ready for shipment. It was the custom to sell lumber in Chicago according to the certificates of inspection as to both quality and amount. The defendants were known in Chicago as accurate and experienced inspectors. Plaintiff applied to them to inspect this lumber, which was to be shipped…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). It would be necessary to discuss some of the assignments of error, provided the plaintiff had made such a case as should have been submitted to the jury. Counsel for the defendants contend that the alleged errors are immaterial, since the court should have directed a verdict. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that this question cannot be now raised, as the record does not contain all the testimony. We must hold that the record contains all the testimony under the following decisions: Hitchcock v. Burgett, 38 Mich. 508; Ironwood Store Co. v. Harrison, 75 Mich. 201.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hitchcock v. BurgettMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Ironwood Store Co. v. HarrisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Conner v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909