Legal Opinion

Warren v. Halley

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1895PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne; Frazer, J. Replevin by Joseph A. Warren and' another against George P. Halley. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

Plaintiffs are dealers in pianos in the city of Detroit. In the month of August, 1893, one Armstrong called on the defendant and his wife, representing himself to be an agent for the plaintiffs, and, after some talk between the parties, Armstrong stated that he would send up a piano on approval. On the same day a piano was sent up from plaintiffs’ place of business toi defendant's house. The fact appears to be, as shown by the testimony of Mr. Joseph Warren, that at that time the only employment which Armstrong had was to go with Mr. Hands, another agent of the plaintiffs, to play pianos •…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. FrankOhio Court of Appeals · 1915
  2. Phippen v. Bay Cities Consolidated Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. FrankHamilton County Court · 1915
  4. Glasier v. City of YpsilantiMichigan Supreme Court · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API