Earl Fruit Co. v. Herndon Fruit Co.
This text of 253 Mich. 329 (Earl Fruit Co. v. Herndon Fruit Co.) 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.
Opinion
Plaintiff sued to recover sale price of two carloads of grapes received by defendant, and had judgment in a trial without a jury. Defendant brings error.
[330]*330The cars were sold through Hoien, a broker at Lansing*. As to first car, defendant contends that it bought from Hoien personally, not from plaintiff. Plaintiff contends it sold to defendant through Hoien as agent.
The evidence pro and con presented a question of fact, which the court rightly decided in favor of plaintiff.
The other car was diverted to a dealer in Jackson. Was this for the account of defendant, or of plaintiff, or Hoien? The trial judge found the diversion was for account of defendant, who must look to the deafer in Jackson, and that defendant is indebted to plaintiff for the price of the fruit. The evidence sufficiently supports the finding, and it may not be disturbed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
253 Mich. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earl-fruit-co-v-herndon-fruit-co-mich-1931.