Beckwith v. Mace
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oceana; Russell, J. Assumpsit by Alanson Beckwith against L. Stowell Mace, Robert H. Lanyon, and John S. Huey, copartners as the Stony Lake Resort Company, for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The defendants’ counsel admitted, upon the trial of this cause, that his clients constituted a syndicate formed to exploit a summer resort called the “ Stony Lake Resort,” and sell lots. The testimony showed that, in furtherance of that design, defendant Mace was manager, and one Barnes superintendent upon the ground, and that a dock was made at the lake, some clearing and other work done, and that the time of the men was kept by *159Barnes, under whose supervision they worked. They were given orders by Barnes, which were paid sometimes by Huey, if not by the other defendants. The action is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Michigan Savings Bank v. Estate of ButlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Seekell v. FletcherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Stecker v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Hopkins v. ThomasMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Whitla v. Estate of ButlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Furlow Pressed Brick Co. v. Balboa Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Mills v. RiggleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Smith v. Stock Yards Loan Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Taylor v. FluhartyIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Churchill v. MaceMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.