Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harley v. Hartford Fruit Growers & Farmers Exchange

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1921No. Docket No. 90Published

Error to Van Burén; DesVoignes (L. Burget), J. Assumpsit by Lee Harley and another against the Hartford Fruit Growers & Farmers Exchange for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error.

1DissentBird, J.

Plaintiffs claim they sold *148710 bushels of Duchess apples to defendant in August, 1919, at $2.25 a bushel, and delivered the same to the defendant in a railroad car at Hartford. That after-wards they received $400 on account thereof, leaving a balance of $1,197.50. They sue to recover this balance.

The defendant is said to be a corporation. Its method of operation is to receive, pack and sell the fruit of its members and at the end of the season it deducts 5 per cent, of the gross, income for services and prorates the balance among its members. Growers of fruit, who are not members, may put…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. People v. LipsczinskaMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Hallenbeck v. Powers & Walker Casket Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Rundell v. Farmers' Co-operative Elevator Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API