Crosby v. Hill
Ohio Supreme Court
Motion for leave to file petition in error to tbe Superior Court of Cincinnati. Tbe plaintiffs, I. S. Crosby and W. W. Collins, filed tbeir petition against tbe defendant William H. Hill, alleging tliat on or about March 12, 1881, they were partners and engaged in tbe lumber business at Greenville, Micb.
Read the full summary
Motion for leave to file petition in error to tbe Superior Court of Cincinnati. Tbe plaintiffs, I. S. Crosby and W. W. Collins, filed tbeir petition against tbe defendant William H. Hill, alleging tliat on or about March 12, 1881, they were partners and engaged in tbe lumber business at Greenville, Micb. That one Rotb, a lumber broker in Cincinnati, represented to them that be bad, as sucb broker, sold for them to tbe defendant one car-load of shingles at $3.55 per thousand; that thereupon tbey shipped to tbeir own order 70,000 shingles, to be delivered to Hill by the railroad company, upon…
1Opinion of the CourtDoyle, J.
The allegations of tbe petition that Roth, a lumber broker in Cincinnati, represented to plaintiffs that, as such broker, he had sold for them to the defendant, a car load of shingles, and that such shingles were shipped by them to their own order, to be delivered to the defendant by the railroad company upon the payment of the freight, are not denied in the answer. There is no allegation in the answer, nor is there any thing in the evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs ever authorized the broker to receive payment for them, ever intrusted the broker with the possession of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bennecke v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Higgins v. . MooreNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- McKindly v. DunhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Clark v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
- Kornemann v. MonaghanMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.