Howland v. Davis
| Citation | 40 Mich. 545 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1879 |
| Parties | Andrew M. Howland, Matthias Luce and Frances H. Manning v. Albert C. Davis |
Submitted January 30, 1879
Error to Jackson. Submitted Jan. 30. Decided April 15.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
M. V & R. A. Montgomery for plaintiffs in error.
Austin Blair for defendant in error. A consignee or factor, even if he makes advances on the goods of his principal, and to an amount beyond their value, must yet obey the latter's instructions as to the time of sale, though there be no agreement to that effect. Bell v. Palmer, 6 Cow 128; Parker v. Brancker, 22 Pick. 46; Blot v Boiceau, 3 Comst. 86; Brown v. McGran, 14 Pet. 479.
Davis, who lives in Jackson, sued plaintiffs in error for damages sustained by their wrongful delay in failing to sell a consignment of wool until the price had fallen largely after they received it for disposal.
The wool was shipped June 15, 1875, and received by the consignees in Boston June 21. The earliest sale they made was August 4, when they sold a few bales at 56 cents on 60 days time. The next sales were in December at 50 cents, and the remainder in January, 1876, at 43, and in March, 1876, at 40, also on 60 days time.
The evidence tended to show that there was a difference between Jackson and Boston prices of about five cents, and that wool was worth in Boston 56 or 57 cents at the date of shipment. On the 27th of May, 1875, Davis wrote to the defendants Howland, Luce & Co. of Boston stating he had on hand about 8,000 pounds of wool,--light, delaine, and combing,--and inquiring what they could sell it for, and what they would advance on it, and their commission.
They replied that they would advance 40 cents; that their commissions were 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. interest on advances, and that the wool would bring 55 cents for delaine and 62 to 65 for combing. When the wool was shipped Davis drew on the consignees for $ 2,700, and ordered them to sell on their judgment of the market unless otherwise advised.
A few days after the shipment, Manning, one of the consignees, was at Jackson, when Davis informed him of the consignment, and told him he wished the wool sold at once, even if it should go for a little less than market price, and asked him to write to his house to that effect, which he promised to do. At the time of service of process in this case it was in evidence that Manning admitted he did write, and that he did not know why the wool was not sold.
The jury found a verdict for $ 835, which appears to be on the basis of 56 cents a pound as the price which should have been obtained.
An objection was made below that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Justice v. Brock
...Bush) 299; Linsly v. Carpenter, 27 N.Y.S. 200; Usborne v. Stephenson, 48 L. R. A. 432; Burnett et al. v. Hockaday, 61 Mo.App. 628; Howland v. Davis, supra.) is the duty of the factor as a general rule to sell at the market price. (12 Ency. Law, (2nd Ed.) 658, 659; Davis v. Cotton Mills, 178......
-
Turner v. Lansing Tp.
...was sent to one member of the partnership but claims that each member of the partnership must receive such notice. In Howland v. Davis, 40 Mich. 545 (1879), the Supreme Court held that notice to one partner was notice to all partners. Previously, the Supreme Court had held that a partnershi......
-
Shelton v. Landers
...103 Ark. 468; 34 Ark. 684; 31 Ark. 552. A value once proved is presumed to continue until the contrary appears. 248 F. 636; 45 N.E. 276; 40 Mich. 545; 66 Mo.App. 678; 83 A. 776; 85 345. OPINION WOOD, J. This is an action by the appellee against the appellant. The appellee alleged that, prio......
-
Willard v. Monarch Elevator Company
......If. the value of wheat was lower appellant was entitled to avail. itself of that fact and could have shown it. Howland v. Davis, 40 Mich. 545. Both parties having moved for a. directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff's. testimony, each consented that the ......