Mixer v. Cook
31 Me. 340
Opinion
The jury have found that there was á sale by the plaintiffs to Kimball & Coburn, and that the stipulation for payment on delivery was waived by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ property in the starch had, therefore, ceased.
If they had prosecuted the suit against Kimball & Coburn, in which they attached the starch, proof of fraud between the defendant and Kimball & Coburn, might have availed the plaintiffs. But they do not now claim as creditors.
Judgment on the verdict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mixer v. Cook, 31 Me. 340 (Me. 1850).
31 Me. 340 (Mixer v. Cook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Arnold v. Gambrel
1917 OK 441 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Wadhams v. Balfour
51 P. 642 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)
Johnson—Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central Bank
22 S.W. 813 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co.
22 N.W. 244 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1885)
Rumford Chemical Works v. Finnie
20 F. Cas. 1337 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee, 1879)