Ranney v. Higby
Wisconsin Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit for 360 bbls. of salt, sold bj ¡¡be plaintiffs to the defendant in November, 1861, and shipped at Buffalo, N. Y., on the schooner Juniatta Patton, to him at Milwaukee. Declaration, common counts, with bill of particulars. Plea, general issue.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for 360 bbls. of salt, sold bj ¡¡be plaintiffs to the defendant in November, 1861, and shipped at Buffalo, N. Y., on the schooner Juniatta Patton, to him at Milwaukee. Declaration, common counts, with bill of particulars. Plea, general issue. Upon the trial in the court below, at the May term, 1856, the plaintiffs read in evidence the following letter from them to the defendant: “ Buffalo, November 13, 1851. “L. J. Higby, Esq. — Dear Sir: We have shipped you per brig Helfenstein, 300 bbls. fine salt, at 130c. freight, and have insured the same at 9s. per bbl.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cole, J.
The points insisted upon in this court by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, are:—
1st. That the Circuit Court erred in submitting the' question to the jury to determine what the contract was between the parties; and
2d. That a proper, reasonable and sound construction of the contract shows that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover-for the amount of the salt sued for, notwithstanding what is contained in the letter of November 21, 1851, and -that the court should thus have instructed the jury.
We think it hardly admits'bf discussion, that the construction of this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- A. J. Neimeyer Lumber Co. v. Burlington & Missouri River RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- American Jobbing Ass'n v. JamesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Diefenback v. StarkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Milwaukee Carnival Ass'n v. King, Fowle & McGee Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Baer v. MinockMichigan Supreme Court · 1901