Clippinger v. Starr
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by Harvey Clippinger and Charles Clippinger, copartners as Clippinger & Co., against Marshall Starr, for money had and received. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiffs bring error. Plaintiffs were copartners doing business in the city of Lansing. The firm of A. J. Clark & Co., which consisted of A. J. Clark and one Evarts, kept a bucket shop in Detroit, with a branch office at Lansing.
Read the full summary
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by Harvey Clippinger and Charles Clippinger, copartners as Clippinger & Co., against Marshall Starr, for money had and received. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiffs bring error. Plaintiffs were copartners doing business in the city of Lansing. The firm of A. J. Clark & Co., which consisted of A. J. Clark and one Evarts, kept a bucket shop in Detroit, with a branch office at Lansing. They had a private telegraph wire between the1 Detroit and Lansing offices. The office at Lansing was in the charge of plaintiff Harvey…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). Plaintiffs’ evidence does not support the theory of the special count in their declaration. The money paid to defendant by Harvey Clippinger was not an advance or a loan. It was not paid to him upon any promise, express or implied, to pay it back. The check was given as a payment for the money due from A. J. Clark & Co. to defendant by Mr. Clippinger, who was in charge of A. J. Clark & Co.’s business at Lansing, and who was their agent, and not in any sense the agent of defendant.
The rule is well established that one copartner cannot use the partnership funds in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Casey v. CarverIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Johnson v. CrichtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- LaHood v. WieladtMichigan Supreme Court · 1960