Legal Opinion

Chicago Rubber Clothing Co. v. Powers

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1892PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Brapch. (Loveridge, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

The plaintiff is a corporation doing business at Racine, Wis. The defendant is a merchant at •Quincy, this State, selling clothing at retail. In November, 1888, the plaintiff sold a bill of goods to the defendant, consisting principally of rubber coats. The goods were warranted to be first-class in every respect, and any defective goods were to be returned, or the value thereof •charged up to the company. The goods proved worthless, and the defendant was obliged to refund to purchasers the price paid for the same. The defendant paid for the goods several months before he sold any of them. •On…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Petersen v. Door, Sash & Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Shipman v. CoryellMichigan Supreme Court · 1895

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

Powered by the Exa API