Bell v. Ardis

Michigan Supreme Court

Bell v. Ardis

38 Mich. 609, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 130

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 9, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 Mich. 609 (Bell v. Ardis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Ardis, 38 Mich. 609, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 130 (Mich. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.

Judgment was rendered against [610]*610Bell as a partner of Andrew H. Brandow, for a quantity of lumbering supplies purchased by Brandow and used by the firm in their lumbering business. The partnership being unknown to Ardis and the goods sold to Brandow, certain questions were argued concerning the sufficiency of the finding to show a joint liability.

But as a judgment was rendered for interest without such data as to enable us to determine what amount ■was due or what deduction if any to make from the judgment, — inasmuch as the dates of sales and period of credit are not set forth, we are compelled to treat the finding as defective and amounting to a mistrial, and the case will have to go back for a new trial. Under these circumstances, and with the light of the argument, the parties can have no difficulty in procuring on a new trial the full determination of all the facts in the cause, which will probably settle without further controversy whether the goods were or were not so furnished as to hold Bell.

We shall not, therefore, attempt to pass upon the partnership liability, or determine how far the presumptions reach under the findings.

For the imperfection of the finding upon the question of interest the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Campbell, C. J.

Judgment was rendered against [610]*610Bell as a partner of Andrew H. Brandow, for a quantity of lumbering supplies purchased by Brandow and used by the firm in their lumbering business. The partnership being unknown to Ardis and the goods sold to Brandow, certain questions were argued concerning the sufficiency of the finding to show a joint liability.

But as a judgment was rendered for interest without such data as to enable us to determine what amount ■was due or what deduction if any to make from the judgment, — inasmuch as the dates of sales and period of credit are not set forth, we are compelled to treat the finding as defective and amounting to a mistrial, and the case will have to go back for a new trial. Under these circumstances, and with the light of the argument, the parties can have no difficulty in procuring on a new trial the full determination of all the facts in the cause, which will probably settle without further controversy whether the goods were or were not so furnished as to hold Bell.

We shall not, therefore, attempt to pass upon the partnership liability, or determine how far the presumptions reach under the findings.

For the imperfection of the finding upon the question of interest the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Mich. 609, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-ardis-mich-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack