Yeiter v. Campau
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent; McDonald, J. Assumpsit by William Yeiter and Clarence W. Yeiter against Frank E. Campau for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. This action is in assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Error to Kent; McDonald, J. Assumpsit by William Yeiter and Clarence W. Yeiter against Frank E. Campau for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. This action is in assumpsit. Plaintiffs, in their bill of particulars, state that their demand is for “ 80,000 pounds of apple butter,, at 6 cents per pound, heretofore sold and delivered by the said plaintiffs to the said defendant, amounting to $4,800, and no part of which said sum has been paid by the said defendant to the said plaintiffs.” The plea is the general issue. Plaintiffs recovered a judgment for…
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
(after stating the facts). We will consider such of these propositions as are necessary to a determination.
It was defendant’s position that there could be no recovery under the pleadings, because, the action being in assumpsit, and the bill of particulars notifying him that the plaintiffs’ claim arose out of the sale and delivery to him of the butter in question, the plaintiffs, under the pleadings, could not show that they had, at defendant’s *99request, repossessed themselves of the product, expended money upon its remanufacture and sale, sold it to third persons, appropriating the proceeds to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gorman v. BrossardMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Alderton v. BuchozMichigan Supreme Court · 1854
- Bullock v. UeberrothMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Lloyd v. Pine Lake Iron Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Haken v. SchefflerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970