Legal Opinion

Ruppe v. Edwards

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1884PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Houghton. (Williams, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

This action is assumpsit to recover for goods sold and delivered by plaintiffs,' who were merchants doing business at L’Anse, to one Edward St. Arnault who had been for some time previous in the employment of the defendant, and who had been accustomed to trade with plaintiffs, giving orders on the defendant for his pay, and defendant would accept- and pay them to the amount of his indebtedness to St. Arnault.

In the fall of 1879 the defendant resided at Houghton and was carrying on business there. About that time the *412defendant arranged with St. Arnault to cut some timber owned by defendant. By…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. New York Iron Mine v. First National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Meyer v. BaldwinMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Clayton v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1876
  4. Doan, King & Co. v. DuncanIllinois Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McBroom v. Cheboygan Brewing & Malting Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Ozburn v. Morris & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
  3. Ivenson v. CaldwellWyoming Supreme Court · 1891

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

Powered by the Exa API