Danaher v. Garlock
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Mason Circuit. Danaher had a contract to construct a portion of the Flint & Pere Marquette Railway, and sub-let a portion of the work to Fahy & Dye. This action was brought to charge Danaher with payment of certain indebtedness to G-arlock incurred by Fahy & Dye for the board of their laborers. The evidence showed, among other things, the payment by Danaher’s agent of a previous board bill upon the order of Fahy & Dye.
Read the full summary
Error to Mason Circuit. Danaher had a contract to construct a portion of the Flint & Pere Marquette Railway, and sub-let a portion of the work to Fahy & Dye. This action was brought to charge Danaher with payment of certain indebtedness to G-arlock incurred by Fahy & Dye for the board of their laborers. The evidence showed, among other things, the payment by Danaher’s agent of a previous board bill upon the order of Fahy & Dye. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
We think there is no material distinction between this case and Wells v. Martin, 32 Mich., 478, as to the proof introduced to show liability.. We discover no evidence in the record tending to show an original undertaking by Danaher, or any act of ratification of any arrangement which Fahy & Dye may have made, and the bill of exceptions states that the substance of all the testimony given is set out; and the judge, after refer*296ring in his charge to the evidence supposed to bear on the point, stated that it was substantially the testimony produced by both parties.
The judgment should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wells v. MartinMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by4 opinions
- People ex rel. Boenert v. BarrettIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- Wierman v. Bay City-Michigan Sugar Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
- In re Lee, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1905
- Somerville v. Wabash RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1896