Legal Opinion

Peck v. Jenison

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1894PublishedCited by 19 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

Plaintiff resides at Syracuse, N. Y., and is the-manufacturer of a machine called the “Peck Autographic Cash Register." He has a general agent in this State for the sale of the machines, and the general agent also has. agents taking orders for sales. Sometime in March, 1892, Mr. Porte, one of these subagents, called upon the defendants, who keep a country store in Ottawa county, and procured from them the following order:

“A. R. Peck,
“Cortland, N. Y.
“Please ship to us to Jenisonville, Mich., one Peck's cash register, same as sample shown. Cabinet to be oak No. 5, three rolls of paper. On…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Picard v. McCormickMichigan Supreme Court · 1862

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Mesh v. CitrinMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  2. J. B. Millet Co. v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Plate v. Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Rood v. Midwest Matrix Mart, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Wegner v. HerkimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911

14 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