Danaher v. Hitchcock
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mason Circuit. This was a declaration on common counts with a promissory note appended, signed Danaher & Melendy. The declaration contained no venue. The bill of particulars limited the recovery to the promissory note.
Read the full summary
Error to Mason Circuit. This was a declaration on common counts with a promissory note appended, signed Danaher & Melendy. The declaration contained no venue. The bill of particulars limited the recovery to the promissory note. Defendants demurred, and the demurrer being overruled and judgment rendered for plaintiff, they brought error. in support of the demurrer argued that the want of venue was a fatal defect; and that the declaration was also defective in not averring the copartnership of defendants, and that, they as copartners made the promise sued upon. v
1Per curiam
There is nothing in the exceptions relied upon. That, which relates to the want of an averment of defendants’ partnership is covered by Pegg v. Bidleman, 5 Mich., 26, and that which relates to the venue is settled by the statute.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pegg v. BidlemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Marx Bros. v. Culpepper & DupontSupreme Court of Florida · 1898
- Lewis v. Joseph Hartley & Sons Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1949
- Towle v. DunhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1889