Rubin v. Crowley, Milner & Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Lamb (Fred S.), J., presiding. Assumpsit in justice’s court by Harry Rubin against Crowley, Milner & Company for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.
On June 20, 1919, defendant gave plaintiff’s salesman an order which was accepted for 18 plush coats at $22.50 apiece. The accepted order under the head “Note: Conditions of Purchase,” contained among others the following provision:
“All goods in excess of purchase or different from samples or specifications, returnable at shipper’s expense.”
In due season plaintiff sent on 18 plush coats to defendant, which defendant’s testimony shows were different from the sample shown and were not in accordance with the order in this: that they were not H. & H. plush, were not 42 inches long but were 36…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Stearns Salt & Lumber Co. v. Dennis Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Hunt v. W. F. Hurd Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Solomon v. WeinerMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- American Varnish Co. v. Globe Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Cheboygan Paper Co. v. EichbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. Forest River, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008
- Symons v. Greenwood, Atkinson, Armstrong Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1922
- Davis v. Forest River, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008