Remy, Schmidt & Pleissner v. Healy
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Murfin, J. Assumpsit by Remy, Schmidt & Pleissner against Daniel J. Healy for goods sold and delivered. A judgment for plaintiffs on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The plaintiffs were commission merchants in the city of New York. They were engaged in *268selling ladies’ wearing apparel, manufactured in Europe. They were wholesalers, and had samples of the lines of the manufacturer’s goods sold by them, from which their purchasers gave orders, and from which they gave their own orders to the manufacturer in Europe. The defendant was shown samples of a line of ladies’ shirt waists, and ordered a quantity. On their receipt, he paid a part of the purchase price and sold some of them, but after-wards discovered that they were unsalable for the reason that the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Hoe v. . SanbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Norris Bros. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- Gossler v. Eagle Sugar RefineryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Wisconsin Red Pressed-Brick Co. v. HoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Salzman v. MaldaverMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Lambert v. SistrunkSupreme Court of Florida · 1952
- Hurley-Mason Co. v. Stebbins, Walker & SpinningWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- State v. San Patricio Canning Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1929
- Columbus & Hocking Coal & Iron Co. v. SeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.