Legal Opinion

Carmody v. Powers

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1886PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Charlevoix. (Ramsdell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. Defendants first request should have been given to the jury, namely: “If you find from the evidence, that at the time the bargain was made the Northern Manufacturing Company was existing in fact, and doing business as a corporation; and that plaintiff recognized it as such; that the articles of association wore agreed to and signed before the bargain was made, which was made for and on behalf of the…

Read the full summary

Error to Charlevoix. (Ramsdell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. Defendants first request should have been given to the jury, namely: “If you find from the evidence, that at the time the bargain was made the Northern Manufacturing Company was existing in fact, and doing business as a corporation; and that plaintiff recognized it as such; that the articles of association wore agreed to and signed before the bargain was made, which was made for and on behalf of the corporation, although the articles were not sworn to and recorded at the time, you will find for the defendants.” [The record…

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

Carmody sued defendants in the circuit court for the county of Charlevoix, to recover for the value o'f a steam-engine, and machinery for sawing and similar purposes, and he recovered judgment for the amount claimed. The suit was defended on two chief grounds:

First, that the property was subject to claims beyond what he represented, and that he did not fulfill a part of the agreement to work for the company; and,

Second, that the contract was not individual, but was made on behalf of a corporation known as the Northern Manufacturing Company.

Several assignments of error are alleged, which are…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Doyle v. MiznerMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Stone v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  2. Toledo & Indiana Traction Co. v. Toledo & Chicago Interurban Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1908
  3. LeZontier v. ShockMichigan Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. Hatcher-Powers Shoe Company v. BickfordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925
  5. St. Johns Manufacturing Co. v. MungerMichigan Supreme Court · 1895

1 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