Tri-State Milling Co. v. Breisch
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by the Tri-State Milling Company against Christian Breisch and Robert W. Langenbacher, copartners as Christian Breisch & Company, for breach of a contract for the sale of flour. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Plaintiff sued defendants to recover damages for breach of contract for the sale of four carloads (800 barrels) of flour.
Read the full summary
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by the Tri-State Milling Company against Christian Breisch and Robert W. Langenbacher, copartners as Christian Breisch & Company, for breach of a contract for the sale of flour. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Plaintiff sued defendants to recover damages for breach of contract for the sale of four carloads (800 barrels) of flour. Defendants’ liability depends entirely upon correspondence by letter and telegram, which passed between the parties; plaintiff residing in Nashville, Tenn., and the defendants, manufacturers of flour,…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. It is insisted by the plaintiff that a valid and binding contract was made, while defendants contend that none was made, because no terms of payment were assented to. Plaintiff gave evidence showing that when flour is sold by sample the usual terms are sight draft with bill of lading attached, to be paid when goods arrived, and are found equal to the sample. Defendants admitted that they had heard of such custom, but that they had never done business that way. The court, however, eliminated the question of custom from the case. The secret understanding of parties…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sisson v. Cleveland & Toledo RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
- Aulls v. YoungMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rieger v. HarringtonOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Jordan v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Gorman & WilsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915