Hill v. McDonald
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County. Action for the price of certain shingles alleged to have been sold to the defendants, as partners under the name of McDonald & Co., in June, 1857. The answer of McDonald was agen-eral denial. The other partner, Elizabeth, M. Franklin, did not answer.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County. Action for the price of certain shingles alleged to have been sold to the defendants, as partners under the name of McDonald & Co., in June, 1857. The answer of McDonald was agen-eral denial. The other partner, Elizabeth, M. Franklin, did not answer. Upon the trial, the evidence for the plaintiffs went to show that on the 28th of May, 1857, they agreed orally to let the defendants have 50 thousand shingles in the course of ten days or two weeks, if they would draw them from a certain place designated; that the plaintiffs were to pay tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
PAINE, J.
The only exception that appears in this case was to the refusal to grant a nonsuit. One ground of the motion was, that the contract proved was void by the statute of frauds. This could only be upon the ground that *101it was a contract for the sale of goods of a greater value thsvn fifty dollars. But the proof showed that these goods were delivered and actually sold to other parties by the agent of the defendants. Where part of the goods are accepted by the buyer, the case is expressly excepted by the statute itself.
There was no ground for the motion on the evidence. The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Alderman v. New York Underwriters InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Kemensky v. ChapinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Territory of Dakota ex rel. Travelers' Ins. v. Judge of the District Court of the Third Judicial DistrictSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1888
- Harrison v. . ScottNew York Court of Appeals · 1911