Gatiss v. Cyr
This text of 96 N.W. 26 (Gatiss v. Cyr) 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
(after stating the facts). If delivery by the plaintiff to the common carrier for shipment was both a delivery to and an acceptance by the defendant, the case is not within the statute; otherwise it is. While some authorities hold that a common carrier is the agent of the vendee for delivery and acceptance (Strong v. Dodds, 47 Vt. 348; Leggett & Meyer Tobacco Co. v. Collier, 89 Iowa, 144 [56 N. W. 417]), the contrary rule is established by the decisions of this court (Grimes v. Van Vechten, 20 Mich. 410; Webber v. Howe, 36 Mich. 150; Smith v. Brennan, 62 Mich. 349 [28 N. W. 892, 4 Am. St. Rep. 867]; Kuppenheimer v. Wertheimer, 107 Mich. 78 [64 N. W. 952, 61 Am. St. Rep. 317]). Under these decisions the court below correctly held the contract void, and directed a verdict for the defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
96 N.W. 26, 134 Mich. 233, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatiss-v-cyr-mich-1903.