Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Niles Paper-Mill Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Niles Paper-Mill Co.

72 N.W. 1107, 115 Mich. 35, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1177

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 17, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 N.W. 1107 (Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Niles Paper-Mill 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.

Bluebook

Stilwell-Bierce & Smith-Vaile Co. v. Niles Paper-Mill Co., 72 N.W. 1107, 115 Mich. 35, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1177 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Under these facts, as found by the court, his conclusion of law that the defendant is not liable is correct. The machinery was ordered for another corporation, situated in another place than the residence of the defendant. The fact that the machinery was ordered for another corporation, and that plaintiff was so notified, was sufficient to put it upon inquiry, and it was its duty to ascertain whether Jacks was authorized by the defendant to make the purchase for another company. It was not within the general scope of Jacks’ agency to order goods in the name of his principal for other parties.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Under these facts, as found by the court, his conclusion of law that the defendant is not liable is correct. The machinery was ordered for another corporation, situated in another place than the residence of the defendant. The fact that the machinery was ordered for another corporation, and that plaintiff was so notified, was sufficient to put it upon inquiry, and it was its duty to ascertain whether Jacks was authorized by the defendant to make the purchase for another company. It was not within the general scope of Jacks’ agency to order goods in the name of his principal for other parties.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.W. 1107, 115 Mich. 35, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stilwell-bierce-smith-vaile-co-v-niles-paper-mill-co-mich-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack