Timmerman v. Bultman

The material facts in this case differ from those considered by this court in Timmerman v. Bultman, 243 Mich. 344, and Timmerman v. Henry L. Doherty & Co., 246 Mich. 19, in the following particulars only: Bultman, upon inquiry of the plaintiff, stated that he was the salesman of Doherty & Co. (hereafter called the defendant), and the defendant claims that Bultman was discharged by it prior to the transaction between him and the plaintiff. The trial court, before whom the case was tried without a jury, found that Bultman was discharged on October 22, 1926, and that plaintiff’s dealings with…