Miller v. Petrie

Michigan Supreme Court

Miller v. Petrie

40 Mich. 657, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 654

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 Mich. 657 (Miller v. Petrie) 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

Miller v. Petrie, 40 Mich. 657, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 654 (Mich. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Marston, J.

There was evidence given in this case on the part of the plaintiff below that he sold goods to the wife of plaintiff in error upon one year’s time under an express contract; that the goods were delivered; that an account therefor was rendered to Mr. Miller and by him retained without objection. There also was evidence tending to show that at the time an action was brought to recover for a part of the goods so sold and delivered, the account sued and recovered upon in this case was not due. With the weight of this evidence we are in no way concerned. The instructions given to the jury, both as to the authority of the wife to bind her husband and as to the splitting up of one cause of action were clear and explicit, and gave plaintiff in error no just cause of complaint.

[658]*658We discover no error in this record. The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Marston, J.

There was evidence given in this case on the part of the plaintiff below that he sold goods to the wife of plaintiff in error upon one year’s time under an express contract; that the goods were delivered; that an account therefor was rendered to Mr. Miller and by him retained without objection. There also was evidence tending to show that at the time an action was brought to recover for a part of the goods so sold and delivered, the account sued and recovered upon in this case was not due. With the weight of this evidence we are in no way concerned. The instructions given to the jury, both as to the authority of the wife to bind her husband and as to the splitting up of one cause of action were clear and explicit, and gave plaintiff in error no just cause of complaint.

[658]*658We discover no error in this record. The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Mich. 657, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-petrie-mich-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack