Harding Paper Co. v. Allen
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Comity Court of Milwcmkee County. The case is stated in the opinion. To the point that no right of stoppage remains after the goods are in the hands of the carrier as warehouseman, holding them for the consignee, they cited Benjamin on Sales (2d ed.), 305, 697, 707-15; Wilmshxvrst v. Bówlcer, 2 Man. & G. 792; Bielcbarrow v. Mason, 4 Ero. P. C. 57; James v. Griffin, 2 Mees. & W. 623; Jackson v. JSTichol, 5 Bing.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Comity Court of Milwcmkee County. The case is stated in the opinion. To the point that no right of stoppage remains after the goods are in the hands of the carrier as warehouseman, holding them for the consignee, they cited Benjamin on Sales (2d ed.), 305, 697, 707-15; Wilmshxvrst v. Bówlcer, 2 Man. & G. 792; Bielcbarrow v. Mason, 4 Ero. P. C. 57; James v. Griffin, 2 Mees. & W. 623; Jackson v. JSTichol, 5 Bing. N. C. 508; Hitchcock v. Covill, 20 Wend. 167; Mottra/m v. Heyer, 1 Denio, 483; 1 Parsons on Cont. 603-4; Allan v. Gripper, 2 Cromp. & J. 218; 2 Tyr. 217; Foster
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
The appellant brought an action in the county court of Milwaukee county to recover of the respondent the purchase money for a quantity of paper, which the appellant claims to have sold to the respondent. On the trial in the county court the learned county judge directed a verdict in favor of the respondent. Erom the judgment entered upon such verdict the plaintiff appeals to this court, and alleges as error the direction of a verdict for the defendant.
The appellant and plaintiff in the court below claims to have sold to the receiver, George W. Allen, as such receiver, the paper described in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sherman v. RugeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Hoover v. TibbitsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jeffris v. Fitchburg RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- State v. Intoxicating LiquorsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1908