Legal Opinion
De Kruif v. Flieman
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 14, 1902No. Docket No. 134PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to Ottawa; Padgham, J. Assumpsit by Henry De Kruif against Jacob Elieman for goods sold and delivered. Erom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
This case comes before us on a special finding of facts and law. The plaintiff sues as the assignee of the Superior Drill Company. The defendant received from the Superior Drill Company a number of drills, three of which are in controversy here. The question is whether, under this contract, the defendant became a purchaser of the drills, or was simply the agent of the Superior Drill Company.
The contract is lengthy, but it contained, among other provisions, a clause that:
“All machines sold by second party [defendant] shall be settled for during the season in which they are received,' at net…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Aspinwall Manufacturing Co. v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by3 opinions
- Balasquide v. Guilhon & BarthelemySupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1942
- Varga v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1983
- Balasquide v. Guilhon & BarthelemySupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1942