Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Mich. 280

Winchester v. King

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1882

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1882-04-25

Replevin. Winchester had made a written contract with King to keep him supplied .for two years with a stock of goods which King was to pay him for at an advance of twenty-five per cent, on the invoice price; besides keeping the goods-, insured for Winchester’s benefit.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1899

2 state decisions

Relies on Perrott v. Shearer · Conely v. McDonald

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1882-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Marston, J.

¶1Two questions are raised in this case. First, ■did the court err in submitting the case to the jury? We think not. The evidence tended to sustain the defendant’s theory, and within the rule laid down in Conely v. McDonald 40 Mich. 150, the weight and effect thereof were for the jury. Second, did Mr. Gray have authority to act in the premises ? There is some evidence tending to show that at one time he acted as agent and this does not seem to have been changed; besides no such question was raised on the trial, and it is too late to raise it here for the first time. Perrott v. Shearer 17 Mich. 48.

¶2The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Campbell and Cooley, JJ. concurred.
/48/mich/280 · .json · Public domain