Sikemeler v. Jacob
| Decision Date | 27 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | 13,090 |
| Citation | 46 So. 169,92 Miss. 562 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | RUMSEY SIKEMEIER v. FRANK M. JACOB |
FROM the circuit court of Lowndes county, HON. ROBERT F. COCHRAN, Judge.
This was an action brought by the appellant, Sikemeier, against the appellee, Jacob, on an open account for goods sold and delivered, in which the defendant, Jacob, claimed credit for one closet returned to plaintiff as unsatisfactory, a year and a day after its purchase.
Reversed and remanded.
J. W. Loving, for appellants.
There was unreasonable delay in the return of the closet and the defendant was not entitled to a credit on account thereof. 4 Current Law, p. 1332, par. 2, § 7C.
Z. P. Landrum, for appellee.
This record presents an action on an open account of various items, among which there appears charged the appliances for a certain closet. It is shown that this closet was sold and delivered to the appellee, and retained by him for more than a year before it was returned to the vendor; and in reference to this item the court below, as we think properly, charged the jury that "the closet returned in this case was retained too long to be returned." Notwithstanding this direct charge, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the court below refused to grant a new trial, in which we think there is error.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. B. Colt Co. v. Odom
...at the place of delivery, which in this case would have been at the place of shipment. See Young v. Arntze, 5 So. 253; Rumsey & Sikemeier Co. v. Jacob, 46 So. 169; Case Threshing Machine Co. v. McCoy, 111 Miss. 72 So. 138. If a mere offer to return is ever sufficient to take the place of an......
-
Ryan v. Glenn
...plant, J. B. Colt Co. v. Fuller, 144 Miss. 490, 110 So. 427 (1926), and one year's delay in sale of a closet, Rumsey & Sikemeier Co. v. Jacob, 92 Miss. 562, 46 So. 169 (1908). They also say that continued use of the bull after learning of his deficiencies and profiting therefrom bars rescis......
- Combs v. Mobile & O.R. Co.
-
Giles v. Phillips
...& Machine Co. v. Gaddy, 62 Miss. 201; Stillwell Bierce & Smith Vaile Co. v. Biloxi Canning Co., 78 Miss. 779, 29 So. 513; Sikemeier v. Jacob, 92 Miss. 562, 46 So. 169; 6 R.C.L. 936, Sec. 319; Williston on Sales, Sec. 611. We think that the controlling principle involved in the case at bar i......