Legal Opinion

Hitchcock v. Griffin & Skelley Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1894PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.

Kean & Co., the assignors of the plaintiff, being wholesale dealers in fruit, ordered, through one Blodgett, a car-load of oranges from the defendant, which was a similar dealer in California. The oranges arrived at Toledo, and Kean & Co. were required to accept a draft for the price before receiving or being allowed 'to inspect them, this acceptance being subsequently paid. The fruit proving unsatisfactory, this action was brought upon the contract for damages, and plaintiff recovered.,

Two questions arise in the case:

1. The authority of Blodgett to bind defendant by his agreements, including…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. The Monte AllegreSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  2. Boorman v. JenkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1834
  3. Smith v. . TracyNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
  4. Heyn v. O'HagenMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Forcheimer & Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Stone v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  2. Alexander v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  3. White v. SchweitzerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
  4. St. Johns Manufacturing Co. v. MungerMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Norman Lumber Co. v. Keystone Manufacturing Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1925

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API