Legal Opinion

Studley v. Barth

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1884PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to the Superior Court of Grand Rapids. (Parrish, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

Both parties in this ease are.merchants, and do business in the city of Grand Rapids. The plaintiffs in the spring of 1882 dealt in belting, and through their traveling agent took an order for goods from the firm of Houghton & Fuhrman, at Hersey, where they were operating a shingle-mill. This firm at Hersey had a contract with defendant to manufacture shingles for him at their mill, but had no authority to purchase goods on his credit. On receiv-’ ing the order the plaintiffs’ information as to Houghton & Fnhrman’s responsibility was not favorable, and the plaintiff Richmond went to the…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Williams v. AutenNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Butters Salt & Lumber Co. v. VogelMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Fuller & Rice Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. HousemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Ivenson v. CaldwellWyoming Supreme Court · 1891

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

Powered by the Exa API