Smith & Cheney Co. v. Schmidt
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by the Smith & Cheney Company against Frank J. Schmidt and William D. Parkins, copartners as the Harvard Hat Company, for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff against defendant Park-ins only, and plaintiff brings error. The defendants were copartners, under the name of the Harvard Hat Company. In April, 1903, Parkins bought out Schmidt, and continued the business under the same name.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by the Smith & Cheney Company against Frank J. Schmidt and William D. Parkins, copartners as the Harvard Hat Company, for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff against defendant Park-ins only, and plaintiff brings error. The defendants were copartners, under the name of the Harvard Hat Company. In April, 1903, Parkins bought out Schmidt, and continued the business under the same name. On November 16, 1902, plaintiff, through its agent and traveling salesman, a Mr. Hanson, received an order from the defendants for goods of the value of…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). The circuit court was in error. The witnesses testified positively that, when the order for the goods was given and received, the defendants composed the copartnership. This testimony implied knowledge. It was given by one who had visited the firm’s place of business and had taken the order. One of the partners had a right to give the order and bind the partnership. Whether the other partner knew it or not is immaterial. Having given the order when they were partners, it is no defense that, in the absence of notice of dissolution, the goods were shipped after the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Goodspeed v. Wiard Plow Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Burgan v. LyellMichigan Supreme Court · 1851
- Sibley v. ParsonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Hall v. HeckMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Elkinton v. BoothMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Armor v. LewisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913