Donoghue v. Indiana & Lake Michigan Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, C. J.
The court directed a verdict for the defendant. This raises the question of law whether the plaintiff had failed to introduce any competent proof, to substantiate some material fact in issue.
The question in dispute here is whether the defendant entered into contract relations with the plaintiff. The contract introduced in evidence was not signed by the defendant, and its execution was denied under oath, in accordance with Circuit Court Rule 79. The contract was signed by William Dallin individually, and hence the further question is raised whether, in so signing his name, he acted for and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1905
- Estate of SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Reed v. Ridout's Ambulance, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Judelson v. American Metal Bearing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- White v. State Ex Rel. FowlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.