Artman v. Ferguson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Jackson. (Lane, J., presiding.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The disability to become partners, if any exists, is that of the wife, and not the, husband; therefore if the statute is broad enough, under the construction of this Court in numerous cases, to confer this power upon her, no question can be made as to their power to enter into the copartnership relation. 2. The test of a wife’s non-competency to contract is,…
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson. (Lane, J., presiding.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. The disability to become partners, if any exists, is that of the wife, and not the, husband; therefore if the statute is broad enough, under the construction of this Court in numerous cases, to confer this power upon her, no question can be made as to their power to enter into the copartnership relation. 2. The test of a wife’s non-competency to contract is, does the contract, or does it not, deal with her individual estate; citing Russel v. Savings Bank, 39 Mich. 674. 3. That a…
1Opinion of the CourtLons, J.
This action is brought in the circuit court for the county of Jackson, on the common counts in assumpsit, to recover for goods sold and delivered to the defendants; doing business at Jackson as Peter Ferguson & Co.
The defendants are husband and wife, and the plaintiffs sought to show that, after their marriage, they formed a copartnership, and carried on the retail carpet business in the city of Jackson under the firm name of Peter Ferguson & Co., and that during such time the goods involved in this suit were sold to them; that Margaret W. Ferguson was, at the time of the formation of such…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Haas v. ShawIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- De Vries v. ConklinMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Bassett v. ShepardsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Edwards v. McEnhillMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Bowker v. BradfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Bandfield v. BandfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Mosier v. CarneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
- Haggett v. HurleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1898
- Lutz v. DutmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Dombrowski v. GoreckiMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.