Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Holder

Decision Date13 May 1895
Docket Number8,044.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
PartiesAULTMAN, MILLER & CO. v. HOLDER.

The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing agricultural implements at Akron, in that state, and sells reapers and mowers in Michigan, through local agents at different places, who sell on commission for the company, and as its agents. A written contract is entered into between the company and the agent similar in form to that sued upon in this case. The action is assumpsit, and is brought against the defendant, William Holder, who is a citizen of Michigan, resident of Lansing, and acted for the plaintiff as a commission agent under the contract executed by himself at Lansing, February 27, 1894, and there countersigned by the local agent of the plaintiff under these provisions of the contract: 'This contract not valid unless countersigned by our manager at Lansing, and approved at Akron. ' The parties have signed and filed a stipulation of facts of which the following is a copy:

'To Said Court: It is agreed between the parties to the above action that the following facts are agreed upon without the submission of evidence, and the parties ask that this stipulation of facts be made a part of the record: First. It is agreed that the contract referred to between the parties was executed, accepted, and approved, as set forth in the said contract. Second. It is agreed that the provisions of the contract, in so far as plaintiff is concerned, have been fulfilled. Third. It is agreed that the balance due, amounting to five thousand and fifty-two and fifty-six hundredths dollars ($5,052.56), is correct. Fourth. It is agreed and admitted that Aultman, Miller &amp Co. is a corporation organized and existing under the general laws of Ohio, having its corporate office in the city of Akron, county of Summit, and state of Ohio, and having its manufactory at the same place. Fifth. It is agreed and admitted that Aultman, Miller & Co. does not manufacture any goods whatever within the state of Michigan. Sixth. It is agreed that Aultman, Miller & Co. sells its goods by means of local commission agents, and that it has a general agent at the city of Lansing, and that its commission agents are under similar contracts with the plaintiff to the one set forth in this action. Seventh. It is agreed and admitted that all contracts are sent to Aultman, Miller & Co., at Akron, Ohio, for approval or rejection before taking any effect. Eighth. It is agreed and admitted that the goods sold by Aultman, Miller & Co. in the state of Michigan, and manufactured at its factory at Akron, Ohio, are shipped from the factory upon orders received from commission agents, forwarded by the general agent from Lansing to Akron. Goods are shipped either direct to the commission agent or in bulk to Lansing, or various points throughout the state, and reshipped in smaller lots direct to the commission agent. Ninth. It is agreed and admitted that Aultman, Miller & Co. own a warehouse in the city of Lansing, for the transfer of such reshipments, for the temporary storage of a small stock of extras or repairs, which experience has sown may be suddenly needed by customers throughout the state during the harvest season. A portion of the commission agents throughout the state also keep on hand a very small stock of repairs, for the immediate use of their customers. These are partially commission goods and partially goods sold direct to them. Tenth. It is agreed and admitted that accounts with every commission agent in the state of Michigan are kept at the office of the plaintiff in Akron Ohio. Eleventh. It is agreed and admitted that the plaintiff effects settlement with its commission agents by sending to its general agent copies or statements of all such accounts, that the general agent and his assistant check over the season's work with the commission agent, collect pay for the machines sold in notes or cash, or both, and forward the same direct at one to the plaintiff at Akron, Ohio, and that the notes so taken are subject to the approval or rejection of the plaintiff. Twelfth. It is agreed and admitted that all notes taken by the commission agents of Aultman, Miller & Co. are sent through its general agent at Lansing, to the factory at Akron, Ohio, where they are numbered, recorded, filed, and retained until just before maturity, when they are sent direct to banks or express companies for collection and remittance direct to Akron, Ohio.

F. A Baker, Attorney for Plaintiff. 'Wood & Wood, Attorneys for Defendant.'

As will be seen, it is agreed and admitted that the balance due the plaintiff from the defendant, arising out of the business done by the defendant for the plaintiff at Lansing, as its agent as aforesaid, under the contract referred to, amounted on the 3d day of November, 1894, to $5,052.56. The declaration sets forth fully the breaches of contract relied upon by the plaintiff, from which this balance arose. The plea of the defendant is the general issue, with notice in accordance with the authorized practice at law in the courts of Michigan that the defendant will show under said plea that Act No. 182 of the Laws of Michigan for the year 1891, as amended by act No. 79 of the Laws of Michigan for the year 1893, provides that: 'Every foreign corporation or association which shall hereafter be permitted to transact business in this state, which shall not, prior to the passage of this act have filed or recorded its articles of association under the laws of this state, and been thereby authorized to do business herein, shall pay to the secretary of state, the franchise fee of one-half of one mill upon each dollar of the authorized capital stock of such corporation or association and a proportionate fee upon any and each subsequent increase thereof; and that every corporation heretofore organized or doing business in this state which shall hereafter increase the amount of its capital stock shall pay a franchise fee of one-half of one mill upon each dollar of such increase of authorized capital stock of such corporation or association and a proportionate fee upon any and each subsequent increase thereof; provided that the fee herein provided, except in cases of increase of capital stock shall in no case be less than five dollars; and in case any corporation or association hereafter incorporated under the law of this state or foreign corporation authorized to do business in this state, has no authorized...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • J. W. Denio Milling Company v. Malin
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1917
    ... ... Minor on Conflict of Laws, 372, 377; 2 Elliott on Contracts, ... Secs. 1110-1117; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Holder, 68 ... F. 467; Perry v. Mount Hope Iron Co., 15 R. I. 380, ... 5 A. 632, ... ...
  • United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1910
    ...Mo.App. 385; Brewing Co. v. Bobrecker, 79 Mo.App. 65; Kerwin v. Dorin, 29 Mo.App. 397; United States v. Telephone Co., 29 F. 17; Aultman v. Holder, 68 F. 467; Tayloe v. Insurance Co., 9 How. 397; Mack Lee, 13 R. I. 293; Glass Co. v. Taylor, 34 S.W. 711; Jameson v. Gregory, 61 Ky. 363; Milli......
  • United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1908
    ...83 Mo.App. 385; Brewing Co. v. Bobrecker, 79 Mo.App. 65; Kerwin v. Dorin, 29 Mo.App. 397; U. S. v. Telephone Co., 29 F. 17; Aultman Miller & Co. v. Holder, 68 F. 467; Tayloe v. Ins. Co., 9 How. 397; Mack Lee, 13 R. I. 293; Glass Co. v. Taylor, 34 S.W. 711; Jameson v. Gregory, 4 Metc. 363; M......
  • International Text-Book Company v. Gillespie
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1910
    ...in this State, but is interstate commerce and not subject to regulation by statutes of this State. Corn v. Hogan, 74 S.W. 737; Packet Co. v. Holder, 68 F. 467; Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 264; McCall v. California, 136 U.S. 104; Railroad v. Pennsylvania, 136 U.S. 114; Hooper v. California, 155 U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT