Petersen v. Door, Sash & Lumber Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Saginaw. (Cage, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Notice from the-bhyer to the vendor that the goods are held subject to the latter’s order, is unnecessary if he notifies him that they do not correspond to the contract of sale and that he refuses to take them: Hcurgous v. Stone 1 Seld. 86; Kimball c&g. Mfg.
Read the full summary
Error to Saginaw. (Cage, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Notice from the-bhyer to the vendor that the goods are held subject to the latter’s order, is unnecessary if he notifies him that they do not correspond to the contract of sale and that he refuses to take them: Hcurgous v. Stone 1 Seld. 86; Kimball c&g. Mfg. Go. v. Vroma/n 35 Mich. 327; Gri/moldby v. Wells L. B. 10 C. P. 391; Ditoy v. Mouflet 5 II. & N. 233; Gill v. Ka/u/fmcm 16 Kan. 571; Brown v. GorporaUon 35 II. 0. (Q. B.) 509. A purchaser rejecting goods cannot recover back the purchase money unless' within reasonable time he…
1Opinion of the Court
Graves, O. J.
The object of this action was to recover the price of certain saw-logs sold and delivered; and the-defendant, a corporation of the state of Ohio, endeavored' *87to set off an amount of money paid in a prior transaction concerning shingles, and claimed to be recoverable as money paid to the plaintiffs’ use. the plaintiffs recovered; and now the defendant urges tbat the jury were misled by the ■charge given by the circuit judge concerning the transaction relative to the shingles. the controversy is reduced to a question respecting the defense of set-off, but some detail is necessary…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Murphy v. McGrawMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- A. G. Danforth & Co. v. CrookshanksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Bronson v. HerbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Gutta Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. WoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Chicago Rubber Clothing Co. v. PowersMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.