Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

proofs show that this caused defendants more inconvenience than it did plaintiff. We are satisfied that the confusion shown is inconsequential in amount, and that it is not due to any artifice on the part of the defendants or any of them. Plaintiff's proofs have not established a cause for equitable relief. It is not necessary for us to consider the question raised by plaintiff that while one may use his own name in a business he may not confer that name upon a corpo- . ration, as we are satisfied that defendants have not so used their family name in the name of this corporation as to lead the person of ordinary intelligence to believe he was dealing with plaintiff company, nor that defendants have exceeded the boundaries of fair competition.

We find no reason to disturb the decree of the court below and it is affirmed, with costs.

OSTRANDER, C. J., and BIRD, MOORE. STEERE, BROOKE, STONE, and KUHN, JJ., concurred.

DANIELSKI v. LUKOMSKI.

1. TRIAL-CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES-QUESTION FOR JURY. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury.

2. EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY-ESTIMATES-WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. In an action for damages for breach of contract in installing a furnace, that witnesses estimated the cost of properly installing same instead of measuring pipe and figuring new material and necessary labor accurately, while a proper subject of argument to the jury, did not render such testimony inadmissible, its weight being for the jury.

Submitted

Error to Wayne; Mayne, J., presiding. October 23, 1918. (Docket No. 40.) Decided December 27, 1918.

Assumpsit in justice's court by Julia Danielski against John Lukomski and another, copartners as Lukomski Brothers, for breach of a contract for the installation of a heating plant. There was judgment for defendants and plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Atkinson & Northmore, for appellants.
Samuel H. Crowl, for appellee.

FELLOWS, J. Defendants agreed for the sum of $450 to install a heating plant in plaintiff's residence. It was to be done in a first-class manner. A heating plant was installed and the contract price paid. Plaintiff, claiming that the plant was not installed in accordance with the contract, brought this suit and recovered a judgment of $250. Defendants bring the case here asking for a reversal on two grounds:

(1) That there was no sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury; and

(2) That the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

An examination of the record in the case satisfies us that defendants are quite wrong in both contentions. If the testimony of the plaintiff, her son, and her tenant is believed, and their credibility was for the jury, the plant never worked from the day it was first put in operation and was worthless. In addition to this testimony plaintiff produced two witnesses, both of whom were, and for many years have been, engaged in the plumbing and heating business; both of whom examined the plant, testified to many de

204-Mich.-20.

fects, what was necessary to be done in order to make it workable, and estimated the expense it would cost to produce such result. That they did not measure the length of the piping they concluded should be taken out and larger size substituted, and that they estimated what it would cost for new material and labor to make the plant comply with the contract instead of going over it with a rule and accurately figuring each item was a proper subject of argument to the jury, but it did not render their testimony inadmissible or make the question one of law for the court.

One of the defendants was sworn and a heating engineer was also called by them. Both these witnesses gave testimony contradictory to that given by plaintiff and her witnesses. The case was one of fact; the charge of the court was a fair one, is not objected to, and left to the jury the questions to be determined. The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. The judgment is affirmed.

OSTRANDER, C. J., and BIRD, MOORE, STEERE, BROOKE, STONE, and KUHN, JJ., concurred.

NOBLE v. PIRSON.

1. SALES-CONTRACTS-REFUSAL OF GOODS-REASONS-EVIDENCE. In an action by the seller for damages for the breach of a contract of sale, where the buyer refused a car load of hoops and staves because not in accordance with contract, enumerating specific defects in the hoops, it was admissible for him to show that the staves were not in accordance with the contract.

2. TRIAL-DIRECTED VERDICT-INFERENCES.

Upon a motion to direct a verdict, the testimony most favorable to the other party, together with such legitimate inferences as may be drawn from the established facts, must be accepted.

3. SAME CUSTOMS AND USAGES-EVIDENCE-QUESTION FOR JURY. Contradictory testimony as to what the trade understood by the term "red gum fruit barrel staves," held, to present a question for the jury.

Error to Cass; Des Voignes, J. Submitted October 24, 1918. (Docket No. 122.) Decided December 27, 1918.

Assumpsit by William K. Noble against John Pirson for breach of a contract for the purchase of certain hoops and staves. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Hendryx & Mosier, for appellant.
E. Bruce Laing, for appellee.

After some preliminary correspondence, on June 11, 1913, plaintiff wrote defendant, a dealer in cooperage stock, quoting prices and offering to sell him certain stock. The letter contained the following:

"Mill run 281⁄2 inch red gum fruit barrel staves cut 6 to 2, 9/16 inch bilge, $7.75 per thousand; mill run 17% inch hardwood heading 634 cents per set; number one six-foot coil elm hoops, $10.90 per thousand F. O. B. Newfane, New York."

On June 23d defendant sent plaintiff the following telegram:

"Ship car mill run heading 8,000 set 17% inch. One large car mill run staves 281/2 inch. One car number one hoops, 50,000. Ship quick. Delivered Newfane, New York."

The heading after being loaded in cars was burned and is not involved in this case. Fifty thousand hoops

were shipped from Fostoria, Ohio, from a plant controlled by plaintiff, and a car containing 64,700 staves was shipped from New Madrid, Missouri. On July 11th defendant wired plaintiff from Lockport, New York, as follows:

"Customers will not accept hoops or staves. Leaving four o'clock. Answer."

To this telegram plaintiff replied:

"Don't understand your wire. Quality both staves and hoops all right. Both shipped on your order and we expect you take delivery at once."

On the same day Mr. Pirson wrote Mr. Noble two letters, one from Lockport and the other after he had arrived at his home in Stevensville, Ontario. In the first of these letters he speaks of having sent the telegram and enumerates defects in the hoops. The second letter contains the following language:

"If your stock had been as you guaranteed it to be I could have made a few dollars. As it is neither you nor I will make anything as there will be car services charged until you move them."

Other correspondence passed between the parties, but defendant refused to take the stock and plaintiff resold the same at a loss, for the recovery of which he brought this action, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the defendant.

FELLOWS, J. (after stating the facts). We do not understand it to be claimed, at least it cannot be successfully claimed, that upon this record there was no evidence that the hoops were defective, of an inferior grade, and did not comply with the contract in the particulars claimed by the defendant in his correspondence and testimony. But it is claimed that, so far as the question of recovery for the loss on the staves is concerned, two reversible errors were com

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »