Legal Opinion

Smith v. Jennings

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 1899PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Muskegon; Russell, J. Assumpsit by William J. Smith against Edwin B. Jennings, David M. Hillis, and Edward P. Caldwell, co-partners as the Consolidated Rail-Joint Company, on certain assigned labor claims. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendants Jennings and Hillis bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

The declaration charges that the three defendants were, at the date of incurring the indebtedness which is the subject of the action, copartners in business under the name of the Consolidated Rail-Joint Company. The plaintiff is the assignee of a number of claims for labor. That the services charged for were rendered, appears not to have been disputed. The defense consisted of a denial of the alleged copartnership. The plaintiff relied chiefly on the testimony of defendant Caldwell to establish the fact of partnership. The appealing defendants denied the partnership, and gave testimony to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cluett v. RosenthalMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Misner v. DarlingMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Campau v. MoranMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Richardson v. McGoldrickMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Banghart v. HydeMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Reetz v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Layton v. Cregan Mallory Co., Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Firchau v. FosterMichigan Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Daly v. Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Spencer v. SimmonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

3 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