Legal Opinion
Knights v. Piella
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 1, 1896PublishedCited by 27 opinions
Error to Ingham; Person, J. Assumpsit by Charles H. Knights and another against Charles A. Piella for the value of certain diamonds sent to defendant on selection. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtHookee, J.
The plaintiffs were wholesale dealers doing business in Chicago, and defendant a retail dealer in jewelry at Lansing. The defendant wrote, and plaintiffs received, the following letter, viz.:
“Lansing, Mich., June 21,1893. “C. H. Knights & Co.
“Sirs: I have a customer for a diamond. I think he will take about one and one-half carat stone. Send me some, but good qualities. If I sell him a stone, it will sell a half dozen more in a sh.ort time. He is a man of big influence. Send them from one and one-fourth up to two carats. Send two or more at one and one-half carats, in different quality, if…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Walker v. OwenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Snyder v. MurdockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- F. J. Dewes Brewery Co. v. MerrittMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Weir Plow Co. v. PorterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Burnley v. TuftsMississippi Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Hansen v. Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Prettyman v. Hopkins Motor Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1954
- Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. HughesMississippi Supreme Court · 1908
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pacific Transfer Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1922
- Colburn v. Washington State Art Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1914
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.