Peck v. Jenison
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Picard v. McCormickMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by19 opinions
- Mesh v. CitrinMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
- J. B. Millet Co. v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Plate v. Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924
- Rood v. Midwest Matrix Mart, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1957
- Wegner v. HerkimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.