Comstock v. Sanger
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. Receipt of goods is different from acceptance (Benj. Sales § 703) winch must be proved by unequivocal acts of the buyer: Knight v. Ma/nn 118 Mass. 143; 2 Addison on Confc. § 1218; acceptance and appropriation do not waive damages for breach of contract of sale: Trowbridge v. Barrett 30 Wis. 661; Allen v. MoKibbvn 5 Mich. 449 5 Henkel v. Welsh 41 Mich. 664; Hall v. Belknap 37 Mich. 179.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
Assumpsit to recover the price of lumber sold. On August 26, 1881, Mr. Chauncey Pettibone, as agent for the defendants, entered into a contract with the plaintiffs, of .which they gave him the memorandum copied in the margin.*
The plaintiffs commenced making delivery on the contract, and prior to October 4, 1881, had delivered upwards of 400,000 feet of lumber in Milwaukee, and sufficient in Muskegon to make up a total of 759,623 feet. Mr. Petti-bone had attended to the receipt of the lumber at Muskegon, and tally sheets had been given, showing the quantity of the several sizes. It will appear…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gaylord Manufacturing Co. v. . AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Barton v. KaneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
- Watkins v. PaineSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
- Barton v. KaneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by3 opinions
- Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas CityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Talbot Paving Co. v. GormanMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Brown v. BairdSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897