Legal Opinion

Hoffman v. Gosline

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided July 7, 1909No. 1,904PublishedCited by 8 opinions

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. This was an action in assumpsit upon the common counts. It was commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, by plaintiffs below, partners under the firm name of Gosline & Co., of Toledo, Ohio, against Hoffman, defendant below, of Detroit, Mich.

Read the full summary

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. This was an action in assumpsit upon the common counts. It was commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, by plaintiffs below, partners under the firm name of Gosline & Co., of Toledo, Ohio, against Hoffman, defendant below, of Detroit, Mich. The action grew out of a contract, notice of which was given under the plea of the general issue. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the firm for…

1Opinion of the CourtWarrington, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The assignments of error are numerous, but need not be noticed in detail. Each side presented charges, requesting among other things a directed verdict. The leading issue presented by the record and by counsel is whether title to the coal passed to Hoffman. It is conceded by both sides, as under settled law it must be, that in an action like this — declaration on the common counts — recovery was not permissible unless title had passed.

It is claimed on behalf of plaintiff in error that title did not pass for several reasons: In the first place, that the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dows v. National Exchange Bank of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Harrison v. FortlageSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  3. Merchants' National Bank of Cincinnati v. BangsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  4. A. J. Neimeyer Lumber Co. v. Burlington & Missouri River RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Mora Y Ledon v. . HavemeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1890

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Fabacher v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936
  2. Jenkins v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1945
  3. Baldwin v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1911
  4. Anderson v. MercadoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1947
  5. Mangelsdorf Bros. Co. v. KolpSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API