Zeiner v. Mims
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Barbour. Tried before tlie Hon. J. M. Carmichael. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Barbour. Tried before tlie Hon. J. M. Carmichael. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The claimant separately excepted to the giving of each of the following written charges requested by the plaintiff: (1.) “If the jury believe from the evidence in this case, that the claimant Zeiner did business in St. Louis, Mo., under the name of Brunswick & Co., and under such firm name sent circulars to the plaintiff, showing that Brunswick & Co of St. Louis, Mo., and Brunswick & Co. of Chicago were one and the same firm; and if the jury further believe from…
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
On March 20th, 1890, under a contract of purchase of billiard and pool tables, and in part payment in advance, the appellee, Mims, paid the check of Brunswick & Co., drawn at Chicago, Illinois, for one hundred and eighty-seven 50-100 dollars. The tables were never shipped to Mims, to Eufaula, according to contract of purchase. In May, 1890, two pool tables and fixtures were shipped out to Eufaula from St. Louis, Mo., to J. B. Collins. The appellee, Mims, sued out an attachment against Brunswick & Co., to recover back the $187.50 paid in advance on his purchase, and had the attachment levied…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Miner v. DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Hastings National Bank v. HibbardMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hundley v. ChadickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895