Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. Potter
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 28, 1894PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Error to Clinton. (Daboll, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The iacts are stated in the opinion.'
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The plaintiffs obtained a judgment in an action of assumpsit against the defendants, as partners, irom which the defendants appeal.
*410TJpon the trial the plaintiffs called one Bryson as a witness, who testified that he loaned some money to defendant Potter, and upon that occasion Potter said to him (in-the absence of Gristock) that—
“He [Gristock] is a partner of mine now, and I intend to buy him out when I get this money.”
The court instructed the jury that this statement by Potter could not be used to bind Gristock, unless Gristock authorized Potter to say that he was a partner. The‘main point…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lipsig v. RamlawiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
- Cook v. ColemanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1922
- Chamberlin v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- People ex rel. Anderson v. ByersMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
- Franklin v. HoadleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.