Maryland Casualty Co. v. Scheurman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by the Maryland Casualty Company against Ernest W. Scheurman and others for the amount of a judgment. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendants bring error. On July 12, 1909, the four defendants organized a partnership association, limited, under the provisions of Act No. 191 of the Public Acts of 1877 and amendatory acts (2 Comp.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by the Maryland Casualty Company against Ernest W. Scheurman and others for the amount of a judgment. Judgment for plaintiff on a directed verdict. Defendants bring error. On July 12, 1909, the four defendants organized a partnership association, limited, under the provisions of Act No. 191 of the Public Acts of 1877 and amendatory acts (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 7950 et seq.); the title of said association being “Interstate Construction Company, Limited.” On September 2, 1911, said Interstate Construction Company, Limited, made a proposal in writing to the…
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, J.
(after stating the facts). A motion for new trial thereafter was made based upon two grounds:(1) That the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendants.(2) Because the court erred in directing a verdict for plaintiff.
In this court there are seven assignments of error, all of which involve the propriety of the action of the court in directing a verdict for the plaintiff and which may be considered together. If we understand the po*6sition of appellants in this court, it may be stated briefly as follows: That, considering the correspondence between the Interstate Construction…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sorenson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. HaggartCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Lloyd v. BarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
- Osage City Bank v. C. S. Jones & Bro.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1893