Niles v. Rhodes
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. Niles & Van Anden brought suit in tbe court below, against Rhodes, for the price of a bill of liquors. On the trial, to prove their ' case, they called Charles P. Crosby, who testified as follows: “I am the attorney of Niles & Van Anden, the plaintiffs in this suit.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit. Niles & Van Anden brought suit in tbe court below, against Rhodes, for the price of a bill of liquors. On the trial, to prove their ' case, they called Charles P. Crosby, who testified as follows: “I am the attorney of Niles & Van Anden, the plaintiffs in this suit. On or about the twentieth day of November, a. d. 1857, I called the [defendant John B. Rhodes, into my office in this city, and called his attention to a bill which I now hold in my hand, and asked him to pay it. He took the bill and examined it, and said it was correct, except that he thought there was a…
1Dissent
Campbell J.
dissenting:
As I do not concur in the result arrived at by my brethren in this case, I proceed to give my reasons for dissent upon such points as appear to me necessary to the decision.
I agree entirely with the opinion expressed, that, inasmuch as the only evidence offered below was given to prove a sale of foreign liquors, there was no room for any question about domestic liquors, and that the refusal of the circuit judge to charge that recovery for the price of domestic wines can not be had, was immaterial; and its incorrectness was, therefore, no ground of exception. I also agree…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hogan v. ShermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1858