Legal Opinion

Kingman & Co. v. Denison

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1891PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Replevin. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

On July 8, 1889, defendant Denison wrote the plaintiff at Peoria, Ill., ordering 5,000 pounds of twine. No dealings had ever been had between the *609parties prior to that time. The plaintiff received the letter the next day, and at once wrote Denison: “lYe have entered your order, and twine will go forward to-morrow.” On July 11 the twine was shipped to W. C. Denison, Grand Rapids, Mich., plaintiff taking shipping ■bill from the railroad company there, and on same day sending it to Denison, with statement of account for value of the twine. The twine was received at Grand Rapids by the Grand…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Harris v. . PrattNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
  2. O'brien v. Norris, Caldwell & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
  3. I. Blum & Co. v. MarksSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1869
  4. Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Weber v. BaesslerColorado Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Weber v. BaesslerColorado Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Koontz v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co.Lucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1897

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

Powered by the Exa API