Armour & Co. v. Freeman Baking Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo; Weimer, J. Assumpsit by Armour & Company against the Freeman Baking Company for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff non obstante veredicto. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
This was an action in assumpsit to recover the market price of certain lard, which it was admitted was sold and delivered by the plaintiff, and received and accepted by the defendant, and invoiced by a statement accompanying the delivery, at the then market price of 11 cents a pound. The case was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant of no cause of action. ■ At the close of the evidence the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict. The decision of the motion was reserved by the court until after the verdict, under the provisions of Act No. 217, Pub. Acts 1915 (3 Comp. Laws…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Van Boskerck v. TorbertCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
- Washington Ice Co. v. WebsterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1873
- Young v. IngalsbeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Johnson v. MorrisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Davis v. EastmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1861
3Cited by4 opinions
- Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Kansas Flour Mills Corp. v. Dreyfus Bros.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949