Henry C. Hart Manufacturing Co. v. Mann's Boudoir Car Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Speed, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The. facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
This case is assumpsit for goods sold by *565the plaintiff to the defendant. The balance claimed to be due the plaintiff is the sum of $2,009.49.
The plea is the general issue, and the only question in the case is, to whom were the goods sold and credit given, — to the company, or to W. D. Mann personally?. The cause was tried by jury, and verdict rendered for the amount claimed by plaintiff." The case is now before us for .review.
Counsel for the defendant, at the close of the trial, requested the court to direct a verdict for the defendant. We do not think the case a proper one for such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. FinleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Mayo v. WrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by9 opinions
- Corn v. Crosby County Cattle Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1930
- Davis v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Herbert v. DurgisMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Bates v. KitchelMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Mauritz v. BellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.