Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Niles Paper-Mill Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Van Burén; Buck, J. Assumpsit by the Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Company against the Niles Paper-Mill Company for goods sold and delivered. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. This is a suit brought to recover the price of certain mill machinery, which plaintiff claims to have sold defendant in the year 1893. The defense is non assumpsit. The defendant is a corporation organized under the statutes of this State.
Read the full summary
Error to Van Burén; Buck, J. Assumpsit by the Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Company against the Niles Paper-Mill Company for goods sold and delivered. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. This is a suit brought to recover the price of certain mill machinery, which plaintiff claims to have sold defendant in the year 1893. The defense is non assumpsit. The defendant is a corporation organized under the statutes of this State. Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, and doing business in that State. One E. A. Jacks was a director and secretary of the…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). Under these facts, as found by the court, his conclusion of law that the defendant is not liable is correct. The machinery was ordered for another corporation, situated in another place than the residence of the defendant. The fact that the machinery was ordered for another corporation, and that plaintiff was so notified, was sufficient to put it upon inquiry, and it was its duty to ascertain whether Jacks was authorized by the defendant to make the purchase for another company. It was not within the general scope of Jacks’ agency to order goods in the name of his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cowan v. Sargent Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
- McBroom v. Cheboygan Brewing & Malting Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910