Legal Opinion

Moneyweight Scale Co. v. David

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1914No. Docket No. 113PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Kent; Perkins, J. Assumpsit in justice’s court by the Money weight Scale Company against Joseph David and Deeb Hattem on a promissory note. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAlvay, C. J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment, against defendants upon a directed verdict in a suit brought on a promissory note executed by them for the amount due upon such note.. Plaintiff is engaged in selling certain computing scales to the trade upon written orders, by the terms of which the title to the *9property remains in plaintiff until the purchase price is paid; the payment of the price, except the initial sum of $10, being deferred according to the terms of the promissory note printed upon the same blank which contains the contract order for the scales. The contract order is of considerable…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bunday v. Columbus Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Peuser v. MarshAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
  2. Florence v. Moors Concrete Products, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Fishell v. FishellMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Groenland v. Phœnix Sprinkler & Heating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Stewart v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API