Gatiss v. Cyr

96 N.W. 26, 134 Mich. 233, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 623

Opinion

Gbant, J.

(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.

The other Justices concurred.