Hirshfield v. Waldron
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts a,re stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.
On November 29, 1884, the plaintiff liad a clothing store in the city of Muskegon. On that <lay, the defendant, who was a married woman living with her husband, came into his place of business with their only son, and picked out a coat and vest for the boy. She 'wanted, an entire suit of clothes, but plaintiff did not have in stock any pants of the right size. The price of the coat and vest was $15.50.
The plaintiff claimed on the trial that he had known the defendant for a number of years before that time, and knew that she was the wife of L. A. Waldron, and that she was living with him at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Powers v. RussellMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by19 opinions
- Bolthouse v. De SpelderMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Meads v. MartinMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Detroit Chamber of Commerce v. GoodmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Goodman v. ShipleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Gilson v. City of CadillacMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.