Powers v. Dodgson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Barry; Smith, J. Assumpsit by Serroll Powers against Will Dodgson for breach of a contract for the sale of wool. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. There was conflicting testimony concerning the precise terms of the parol contract which the parties made, a conflict which the jury has apparently resolved in favor of the plaintiff, appellee, and appellant, in presenting his points, assumes the contract to be as plaintiff claims it is.
Read the full summary
Error to Barry; Smith, J. Assumpsit by Serroll Powers against Will Dodgson for breach of a contract for the sale of wool. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. There was conflicting testimony concerning the precise terms of the parol contract which the parties made, a conflict which the jury has apparently resolved in favor of the plaintiff, appellee, and appellant, in presenting his points, assumes the contract to be as plaintiff claims it is. Defendant, appellant, had a quantity of wool, not all of it stored at the same place, for which, to plaintiff, a wool buyer, who had never…
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
(after stating the facts). Both parties testify to a present sale of wool, the precise quantity unknown. The jury has found that the quality was agreed upon, the whole to contain not more than 300 pounds of fine wool. Defendant tendered much more than 300 pounds of fine wool. The plaintiff refused to accept such a delivery, and offered to take the wool with 300 pounds of fine wool and pay for it. Defendant refused all offers made, insisting upon the agreed price for all of the wool and refusing to deliver less than all of the wool.
Under the provisions of the uniform sales act (3 Comp. Laws…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Livingston Shirt Corp. v. Great Lakes Garment Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1958
- Ferer v. J. H. Haney & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1923
- McDonald v. DeweyMichigan Supreme Court · 1935