St. Denis v. Saunders
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent Circuit. cited: Story on Part., §§ 37, 53-61; Leggett v. Hyde, 58 N. 7., 275; Hinman v. Littell, 23 Mich., 484; Ex parte.Hamper, 17 Ves., 404; Ex parte Bowlandson, 1 Bose, 91. cited: Pipp v. Heynolds, 20 Mielh., 88; Turner v. McCarthy, 22 Mich., 265; Story on Part., §§ 30, 32, 34, 36, 41-9; Chase v. Barrett, 4 Paige, 149; Manhattan, etc., Co. v. Sears, 45 JT. T., 797.
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell, J:
St. Denis and his wife were engaged to do work at a lumbering camp under employment by Cardinal, who represented that he and Saunders were partners. When their work was done, Cardinal gave St. Denis a personal order on Saunders to pay the amount and charge it to his account. Saunders did not pay it, and said he had no funds belonging to Cardinal. Suit is now brought against them as partners. The referee, whose report was confirmed, made a finding of facts and concluded there was no partnership. It is claimed his conclusions were wrong.
As we must accept all of his conclusions of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- C. F. & G. W. Eddy v. LambMichigan Supreme Court · 1907