Thoubboron v. Lewis
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. Payment for goods cannot be enforced unless the order therefor was strictly fulfilled, Clark v. Wright 5 Phil. 439; Smith v. Brady 17 N. Y. 173; Martus v. Houck 39 Mich. 431; Neville v. Frost 2 E. D. Smith 62; Gibson v. Cranage 39 Mich. 49; usage cannot be shown to explain a contract if inconsistent with its terms, Ba/r■nard v. Kellogg 10 Wal. 383.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
The defendants, who are bakers in Detroit, refused to accept and pay for a quantity of fancy signs made for them by the plaintiff, an ornamental sign painter in New York. The negotiation between the parties was carried on by correspondence. The defendants, under date of April 12, 1879, wrote for samples of show cards about the size and style of Hathaway & Son’s “Gloss Polish” card, with black ground and red letters, leaving out the picture and putting in “ plain, bold let-ters.” The plaintiff replied under date of the 14th, and enclosed a sample of signs just made for a coffee house, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hoffman v. Ætna Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- White v. . HoytNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Barlow v. . ScottNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Mizner v. KussellMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lapeer County Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit CourtMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
- Winnemucca Water & Light Co. v. Model Gas Engine WorksIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Lapeer County Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit CourtMichigan Supreme Court · 2003