Legal Opinion

Farrington v. Smith

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1889PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

In November, 1886, plaintiffs, a tea firm of New York, through Mr. Schuyler, their Detroit agent, received and filled an order from defendant for two kinds of Japan tea, in half chests; five half chests, and 12 boxes of 20 pounds each, of tea billed as Formosa, of four different prices, ranging from 25 to 35 cents a pound; four half chests of Congou, at 22 and 30 cents a pound; and 11 boxes of Congou, of 20 pounds each, at 24 and 32 cents a pound. The whole bill amounted to $359.21, due March 24, 1887. The Japan tea amounted to $84.

The tea was at once shipped, and reached Detroit in a few…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hakes v. ThayerMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Draft v. HesselsweetMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Crunden Martin Mfg. Co. v. TurnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Columbus & Hocking Coal & Iron Co. v. SeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Gill & Co. v. National Gaslight Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912

11 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