Dillenbeck v. Simons

Michigan Supreme Court

Dillenbeck v. Simons

63 N.W. 438, 105 Mich. 373, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 848

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 21, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 63 N.W. 438 (Dillenbeck v. Simons) 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

Dillenbeck v. Simons, 63 N.W. 438, 105 Mich. 373, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 848 (Mich. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

McGrath, C. J.

The case of Searles v. Reed, 63 Mich. 485, does not change the rule that the question as to a non-joinder of parties defendant must be raised, if at all, by plea in abatement. In that case suit was brought in justice’s court against Reed and one Worden upon a Sunday contract. On the trial there, plaintiff discontinued as to Worden, and took judgment against Reed, who appealed to the circuit. Upon the trial in the circuit, plaintiff insisted that Reed was liable upon an implied contract growing out of negotiations with plaintiff prior to the Sunday in question. The trial court, however, held that it clearly appeared that an express contract was entered into between plaintiff, on the one part, and Reed and Worden, on the other; that the contract was made on Sunday, and therefore void; that the law would not imply a contract in such case; and directed [374]*374a verdict for defendant. This Court affirmed the judgment. Plaintiff had in that case commenced» suit against two parties, who were liable jointly, if at all, in which case judgment against one was unauthorized.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

McGrath, C. J.

The case of Searles v. Reed, 63 Mich. 485, does not change the rule that the question as to a non-joinder of parties defendant must be raised, if at all, by plea in abatement. In that case suit was brought in justice’s court against Reed and one Worden upon a Sunday contract. On the trial there, plaintiff discontinued as to Worden, and took judgment against Reed, who appealed to the circuit. Upon the trial in the circuit, plaintiff insisted that Reed was liable upon an implied contract growing out of negotiations with plaintiff prior to the Sunday in question. The trial court, however, held that it clearly appeared that an express contract was entered into between plaintiff, on the one part, and Reed and Worden, on the other; that the contract was made on Sunday, and therefore void; that the law would not imply a contract in such case; and directed [374]*374a verdict for defendant. This Court affirmed the judgment. Plaintiff had in that case commenced» suit against two parties, who were liable jointly, if at all, in which case judgment against one was unauthorized.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.W. 438, 105 Mich. 373, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillenbeck-v-simons-mich-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack