Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dutcher v. Buck

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1893Published

Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1DissentMontgomery, J.

The sole question in this case is whether the defendant was, as to the transactions out of which the claim of plaintiff arose, a partner of one Leclear.

Among the findings of fact by the circuit judge are the following:

“I find that there was no partnership in fact between Arthur Leclear and defendant. Said plaintiff was not employed to do said work and labor by the said defendant or for him, but said plaintiff was employed by one Arthur Leclear, and said work and labor was done for said Arthur Leclear. Said Leclear had no authority to hire or employ any person for defendant. Said Arthur…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Beecher v. BushMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Dwinel v. StoneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
  3. Newberger v. FriedeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
  4. Clifton v. HowardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
  5. Gray v. GibsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1859

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API