Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. v. Mallery

Michigan Supreme Court

Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. v. Mallery

69 N.W. 75, 111 Mich. 43, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 544

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 75 (Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. v. Mallery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. v. Mallery, 69 N.W. 75, 111 Mich. 43, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 544 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). We are of the opinion that the case was properly submitted to the jury. The goods were shipped and invoices sent by mail to defendant, as was done in Heyn v. O’Hagen, 60 Mich. 150. There is evidence from which the jury might find that defendant received the invoices and made no objection. This, unexplained, would be evidénce of original authority, and, in connection with the testimony of Lamb, was important. Defendant does not testify what time elapsed between the date he saw the goods marked to him and the letter of December 30th denying the authority. We also think that the evidence of Lamb, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain the verdict. If there were discrepancies in his testimony, it was the province of the jury to weigh them, and determine what the fact was, and how much credence they would give to his statement.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). We are of the opinion that the case was properly submitted to the jury. The goods were shipped and invoices sent by mail to defendant, as was done in Heyn v. O’Hagen, 60 Mich. 150. There is evidence from which the jury might find that defendant received the invoices and made no objection. This, unexplained, would be evidénce of original authority, and, in connection with the testimony of Lamb, was important. Defendant does not testify what time elapsed between the date he saw the goods marked to him and the letter of December 30th denying the authority. We also think that the evidence of Lamb, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain the verdict. If there were discrepancies in his testimony, it was the province of the jury to weigh them, and determine what the fact was, and how much credence they would give to his statement.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.W. 75, 111 Mich. 43, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-co-operative-stove-co-v-mallery-mich-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack