Churchill v. Mace
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oceana; Sessions, J. Assumpsit by Charles L. Churchill, administrator of the estate of Alanson Beckwith, deceased, against L. Stowell Mace, Robert H. Lanyon, and John S. Huey, copartners as the Stony Lake Resort Company, for goods sold and delivered.’ There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
This action was brought in the lifetime of the intestate, Alanson Beckwith. On the first trial defendant had judgment on a verdict directed by the trial judge. On review by this court this judgment was reversed and a new trial directed. Beckwith v. Mace, 140 Mich. 157. The report of our decision on the former hearing sufficiently states the issue and the facts of the case. We there held that there was sufficient testimony to carry the case to the jury upon the question whether Mace, who contracted with the plaintiff (Beckwith), had authority to bind the three defendants as copartners, as well…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hintz v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
- Benedict v. Michigan Beef & Provision Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Mahiat v. CoddeMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Beckwith v. MaceMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- McKinnon v. GatesMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mason v. LovinsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
- Mitts v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
- Gustin v. ZiemMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Ewing v. LamphereMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Richter v. McNamara's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1908