Alfred Shrimpton & Sons, Ltd. v. Netzorg
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Gratiot. (Daboll, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The plaintiff, being a wholesale dealer in the city of New York, brought this action against the defendant for the purchase price of three great gross papers of pins which it claimed to have shipped to him upon his written order. The defendant admitted the signature to the order, but defended upon the ground that he was deceived in regard to the quantity of pins mentioned therein. Plaintiff appeals.
Hpon the trial, testimony was offered for the defendant in relation to the transaction between himself and the plaintiff's agent at the time the order was made, tending to show that he bargained…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Julius King Optical Co. v. TreatMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gardner v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Saginaw Medicine Co. v. BateyMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Shrimpton & Sons v. RosenbaumMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- National Cash Register Co. v. DehnMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
- Alfred Shrimpton & Sons Ltd. v. EschwegeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896