Heffron v. Armsby
Decision Date | 10 June 1886 |
Citation | 28 N.W. 672,61 Mich. 505 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | HEFFRON v. ARMSBY. |
Error to Wayne.
Atkinson & Atkinson, for plaintiff.
Dickinson Thurber & Hosmer, for defendant and appellant.
J.H Rudell was a broker doing business in the city of Detroit. Professing to act as agent of James K. Armsby, he entered into a contract with plaintiff to sell him 300 cases B.M corn at $1.25 cash, less one-half per cent., to be delivered during August and September. Afterwards he made and delivered to plaintiff a memorandum of the sale, as follows:
The defendant failed to deliver the corn, and the plaintiff was obliged to purchase at an increased price, and brought this action to recover the difference as damages. The defendant claims (1) that the contract was void under the statute of frauds; (2) that no authority was shown for Rudell to act for defendant; and (3) that there was no evidence to submit to the jury of any ratification of the contract made by Rudell, as agent of defendant, by Armsby.
If Rudell was authorized to act for the defendant, the memorandum was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. It contains the names of the parties, the description of the goods sold, and the price.
It was made to appear that Rudell had acted as the agent of defendant in the sale of goods, and had made sales of corn to other parties, which the defendant had recognized, and had settled the contracts so made by Rudell. Defendant and Rudell also called upon the plaintiff with regard to this sale, and Armsby, while denying all liability, either morally or legally, offered to settle the matter by delivering one-half of the corn, and paying freight thereon to Detroit. Heffron testifies: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial