Legal Opinion

Hinman v. Littell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1871PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne Circuit. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtChristiancy, J.

Defendant in error brought an action of asswnpsii in the court below, against the plaintiffs in error and one William A. Wiggins, for a bill of goods which he claimed to have sold to them as partners, doing business under the name and style of “ Smith & Hinman.”

The main question in the case, as it comes before us, is, whether there was any evidence tending to show that Smith & Hinman (two of the defendants claimed to be members of the firm) had held themselves out as partners with Wiggins (the other defendant).

*485The court refused to charge that there was no such evidence; and some of the…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Beecher v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Parchen v. AndersonMontana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Hobbs v. Virginia National BankCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1925
  4. Sager v. TupperMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API