Anderson v. Fruitvale Transportation Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon; Sullivan, J. Assumpsit by Mary E. Anderson against the Fruit-vale Transportation Company and others, for services rendered. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a livery stable and transfer business located at Montague. The defendant Harrison M. Parker is president and general manager of all three of the corporate defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to Muskegon; Sullivan, J. Assumpsit by Mary E. Anderson against the Fruit-vale Transportation Company and others, for services rendered. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a livery stable and transfer business located at Montague. The defendant Harrison M. Parker is president and general manager of all three of the corporate defendants. It seems to have been the general purpose of the defendant corporations to acquire and develop a summer resort at Fruitvale, which is located about six miles from Montague. So far as it appears from the…
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
(after stating the facts). There are some 29 assignments of error which we find it unnecessary to consider at large.
It is elementary that a judgment against several defendants may only be had where all the defendants are jointly liable upon the cause of action. This record signally fails to show any joint liability of the three corporate defendants with each other or with the individual defendant. It is obvious that plaintiff rendered her services sometimes to one corporation and sometimes to another, and perhaps sometimes to the individual defendant. In endeavoring to collect her accounts…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stagg v. LawtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
- Fennell v. HauserOregon Supreme Court · 1933
- Clopper v. Railways Ice Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1932