| Show II SHOULD HOULD HA HAVE f HAD 1 k 1 Opinion of Supreme Court in Case a Of Smith Table P W Madsen Madson y LOWER COURT IS AFFIRMED I Company o III II Contended Hint t i it Sn J I lit I So 11 lo In GIn ilio Other flier I CI h I 1 The rhe 01 supreme court cotiL toay handed hUI 1 j an m opinion thu J judg dB i of a the lower court urt In til II the tho cane l C Cot i ot the Smith Tib Table company appellant I 1 P V la The 1 notion was ts t d to 10 tobo toU brought to tt a I ti the tho role rale of ut certain c furni furniture bo Il U duo for tor W turl ture tire 1 IJ Ij y to defendant II 11 It was wn contended Nl by h plaintiff The no gocs d dvore l vore Wrt sold oll on 01 an it agreement whereby t the thi wan wui wu to t receive a cash I 11 ll ot of 16 lG 1 per var cent celi If tr for within 1 fl days InH The Jw defendant ed it el that he ww ss to ti Is l 1 known I us ni ft ti 1 trade dl 1 itt which I a ar r discount of tint amount If It paid within 1 90 DO dayH l The amount ot o tip tho sake salo al loss tho I 1 ih per Ir cent celt wai sai Wil paid Ihl by h b defend defendant t ll k ant within SO nO i days L but lut the lh company ln I iI refused lr tit tl t Maw Alow tho discount II runt und 1111 10 credit for tho paid all alli ti i mid 11 sued him hll Ii fop fI or tIll Tho 1110 if lower coUrt found that thit tho the agreement a lt win that haI uw a n trade trudo i 1 mid h rendered a aL de d L In III 1 his hil i Tho company In II HH ItH Ut 11 11 contended that the salesman who llio tH Halo salo lind md no HO 10 authority to Rive gIs ht rn hut but huta hit n a 1 I CUlt 1111 hence exceeded FJ his Jurisdiction when ho cave I VI dif dt I b a fl n trade discount Tho ho court however hold that tc tite rl wan Will tho the meant Jl lt nf f if the tl LI company II charr nf of f II flu tH salesroom at ut Grand Rap RapIds Ids 1 Mich Mleh and that ho hint had authority j to hind bind the company on Oil a n t dis IS discount I F count an well UK BI discount 11 Hence t I the thc Judgment of u 1 the lower In IH of at t Ju trl wrote the tM opinion ion SOil nf ot the tho court which IK Is concurred In II InI I by McCurty McCarty 1 J Chief ehler Bartch nud Justice I |
