Stoll v. Hawks
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Joseph; Knowlen, J. Assumpsit in justice’s court by Amel Stoll, by next friend, against Arland Hawks for the recovery of money paid for a horse. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
The plaintiff is an infant. It is his claim that he purchased of defendant, for $180, a horse, which was warranted to be sound and all right, when, in fact, it was blind. After he found out the situation, an effort to compromise having failed, he returned the horse to the defendant, and demanded a return of his money. The defendant claims he never represented the horse to be sound, and that he did not sell to the plaintiff, but to his father.
The testimony was in sharp conflict. Nearly all the questions involved are questions of fact, which were properly submitted to a jury, which found…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Armitage v. WidoeMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Dunton v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Minock v. ShortridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
- Lansing v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Storrs v. Michigan Starch Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by3 opinions
- Patterson v. KasperMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Gillmett v. TourcottMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Milligan v. S. W. Straus & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934