Cox v. Detroit United Railway

Michigan Supreme Court

Cox v. Detroit United Railway

213 N.W. 710, 238 Mich. 527, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 934

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1926

DocketDocket No. 86.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 213 N.W. 710 (Cox v. Detroit United Railway) 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

Cox v. Detroit United Railway, 213 N.W. 710, 238 Mich. 527, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 934 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

On Reheaeing.

Claek, J.

This case is reported in 234 Mich. 597. There was reversal because of the exclusion of evidence offered to show that plaintiff was not the real party in interest, it being held here that such evidence was admissible without notice under the plea of the general issue. Plaintiff sought rehearing, contending that he was the real party in interest, and that there had been in fact no assignment of his right of action, and he prayed that this court order the evidence relative to the claimed assignment to be taken in this court agreeable to section 12034, 3 Comp. Laws 1915. Rehearing was granted. The order also was made because it appeared that the exigencies of the case required it and that the evidence to be taken was wholly documentary and of record in a department of the Federal government.

*529 The evidence is here. It now appears that plaintiff signed an agreement to assign at any time the bureau of war risk insurance may require. This but follows the statute relative thereto (1 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1919, Supp., chap. 11B, § 514 [40 U. S. Stat. pp. 408, 613]). But plaintiff has not assigned, nor has the bureau required or sought assignment of him'. He was the real party in interest. The error therefore was without prejudice.

Judgment affirmed, to be entered here against defendant and the surety on its bond. 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12795.

Sharpe, C. J., and Bird, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

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

On Reheaeing.

Claek, J.

This case is reported in 234 Mich. 597. There was reversal because of the exclusion of evidence offered to show that plaintiff was not the real party in interest, it being held here that such evidence was admissible without notice under the plea of the general issue. Plaintiff sought rehearing, contending that he was the real party in interest, and that there had been in fact no assignment of his right of action, and he prayed that this court order the evidence relative to the claimed assignment to be taken in this court agreeable to section 12034, 3 Comp. Laws 1915. Rehearing was granted. The order also was made because it appeared that the exigencies of the case required it and that the evidence to be taken was wholly documentary and of record in a department of the Federal government.

*529 The evidence is here. It now appears that plaintiff signed an agreement to assign at any time the bureau of war risk insurance may require. This but follows the statute relative thereto (1 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1919, Supp., chap. 11B, § 514 [40 U. S. Stat. pp. 408, 613]). But plaintiff has not assigned, nor has the bureau required or sought assignment of him'. He was the real party in interest. The error therefore was without prejudice.

Judgment affirmed, to be entered here against defendant and the surety on its bond. 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12795.

Sharpe, C. J., and Bird, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 N.W. 710, 238 Mich. 527, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-detroit-united-railway-mich-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack