Caruso v. Weber

Michigan Supreme Court

Caruso v. Weber

241 N.W. 198, 257 Mich. 333, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 833

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1932

DocketDocket No. 28, Calendar No. 35,692.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 N.W. 198 (Caruso v. Weber) 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

Caruso v. Weber, 241 N.W. 198, 257 Mich. 333, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 833 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in common pleas court in Detroit in assumpsit and had judgment. Appeal was taken to the circuit court of Wayne county, where plaintiff again had judgment. Defendant appeals. The sole question is whether *334 there was evidence to sustain the judgment. The suit was brought to recover rent alleged to have been collected by defendant from tenants of plaintiff’s property. The caretaker of plaintiff’s property was sworn. He testified he collected the rent from tenants for a part of the time and turned it over to Mr. Barton. He produced a receipt purporting to be for rent paid by a tenant to defendant Weber. No one testified Weber received any money for rent of the premises in question. No one identified the receipts as having been signed by Weber, and no one otherwise authenticated such receipts.

‘ ‘ A plaintiff has always the burden of showing his cause of action. Every defendant is entitled to go clear unless made answerable by legal testimony. There are no presumptions against him. If there is no testimony to be found, it is not admissible to make out a case without it. When plaintiff’s case was closed, no cause of action had been made out.” Lendberg v. Brotherton Iron Mining Co., 75 Mich. 84, 89.

This language applies to this case. There is no sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment, which is reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in common pleas court in Detroit in assumpsit and had judgment. Appeal was taken to the circuit court of Wayne county, where plaintiff again had judgment. Defendant appeals. The sole question is whether *334 there was evidence to sustain the judgment. The suit was brought to recover rent alleged to have been collected by defendant from tenants of plaintiff’s property. The caretaker of plaintiff’s property was sworn. He testified he collected the rent from tenants for a part of the time and turned it over to Mr. Barton. He produced a receipt purporting to be for rent paid by a tenant to defendant Weber. No one testified Weber received any money for rent of the premises in question. No one identified the receipts as having been signed by Weber, and no one otherwise authenticated such receipts.

‘ ‘ A plaintiff has always the burden of showing his cause of action. Every defendant is entitled to go clear unless made answerable by legal testimony. There are no presumptions against him. If there is no testimony to be found, it is not admissible to make out a case without it. When plaintiff’s case was closed, no cause of action had been made out.” Lendberg v. Brotherton Iron Mining Co., 75 Mich. 84, 89.

This language applies to this case. There is no sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment, which is reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W. 198, 257 Mich. 333, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-weber-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack