Dutton v. Shaw

35 Mich. 431, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 35
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 16, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 35 Mich. 431 (Dutton v. Shaw) 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
Dutton v. Shaw, 35 Mich. 431, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 35 (Mich. 1877).

Opinion

Campbell, J.:

In this case Shaw had sold and delivered to Dutton several lots of staves, all at a price fixed by a contract, whereby Shaw was to deliver and Dutton to accept all the staves to be got out by Shaw in 1863.

After all the staves had been delivered, Shaw sued Dutton upon the contract, and the case went to judgment. During the trial Shaw failed, by reason of the absence or drunkenness of a witness, to prove an item of two thousand five hundred and forty-six staves, and that item he withdrew from the jury. He now sues Dutton to recover for the item thus withdrawn.

This item being within tbe- former declaration, and being a part of the articles furnished under a single contract entirely executed, cannot, on any known principle, be distinguished from any other case in which a party has failed for lack of proof. It was not a distinct cause of action, and the former judgment was a final determination of the damages to which Shaw was entitled under the contract. The principle which prevents the splitting up of causes of action, and forbids double vexation for the same thing, is a rule of justice, and not to be classed among technicalities. It was intended to suppress serious grievances.

The court erred in holding that this item was still open to litigation. The judgment must be reversed, with costs, 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

Related

Rogers v. Colonial Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
275 N.W.2d 499 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1979)
People v. Noth
189 N.W.2d 779 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
General Accident Fire & Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Sircey
93 N.W.2d 315 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1958)
Clements v. Constantine
73 N.W.2d 889 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1955)
Coniglio v. Wyoming Valley Fire Insurance Co.
59 N.W.2d 74 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1953)
Szostak v. Chevrolet Motor Co.
273 N.W. 284 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1937)
Arnold v. Masonic Country Club
256 N.W. 472 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
Punch v. Marblestone
219 N.W. 623 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1928)
Monarch Dress Co. v. Addison Fashion Shop
219 N.W. 621 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1928)
Brewster Loud Lumber Co. v. General Builders' Supply Co.
200 N.W. 283 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1924)
A. Krolik & Co. v. Ossowski
180 N.W. 499 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1920)
Kruce v. Lakeside Biscuit Co.
165 N.W. 609 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1917)
Miller v. Belvy Oil Co.
248 F. 83 (Eighth Circuit, 1917)
Jensen v. Gamble
157 N.W. 440 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Muir v. Kalamazoo Corset Co.
119 N.W. 1079 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
Love v. Flitcraft
112 N.W. 735 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Andreas v. School District No. 4
100 N.W. 1021 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)
Hesser v. Johnson
1903 OK 57 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1903)
Reynolds v. Jones
38 S.W. 151 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Mich. 431, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dutton-v-shaw-mich-1877.