Case Name: William Monaghan v. James Reid et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1879-04-24
Citations: 40 Mich. 665
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Monaghan v. James Reid et al.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
William Monaghan v. James Reid et al.
Note in payment for intoxicating liquors.
A note given in Michigan for liquors bought in New York is binding.
Error to Wayne.
Submitted April 16.
Decided April 24.
Assumpsit by James and James J. Eeid, constituting the firm of James Eeid & Co., importers of liquors in New York city, to recover the amount of a promissory note for $188.43, dated at Detroit, Oct. 12,1871, payable four months after at Detroit, and signed with the name of William Monaghan. Plaintiffs recovered and defendant brings error.
Larned & Babcock for plaintiff in error.
Brennan & Donnelly for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Marston, J.
The evidence in this case tended to .show that the note sued upon was given for liquors; that an agent of the plaintiffs below called at the place of business of defendant and took the order which was sent on to his principals in New York, by them approved and the liquors shipped. The court upon this theory of the case submitted the case to the jury in accordance with the rule laid down in Kling v. Fries, 33 Mich., 275.
There was also evidence tending to show that the sale was made in Detroit by sample under an agreement that if the liquors on arrival did not equal the sample the purchaser might return them. Upon this branch the rule laid down in Webber v. Howe, 36 Mich., 155, was by the court given to the jury. Under the charge the jury before finding for the plaintiff must have found that the contract was made in New York. And a note given in Michigan for liquors purchased in New York would not be invalid.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.