Smith v. Canfield
This text of 8 Mich. 493 (Smith v. Canfield) 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.
Opinion
The writ of replevin is in the name of E. & J. Can-field, plaintiff. In the affidavit annexed to the writ, John Canfield is described as the plaintiff, and the declaration is in the name of Edmund Canfield and John Canfield. Defendant made a motion to quash the writ and subsequent proceedings, but did not enter his appearance in the cause, or further appear therein after the motion was denied. The writ of replevin was a nullity, as no person was named in it as plaintiff. E. & J. Canfield, the proceedings show, was the name of a partnership. Partners can not sue in the name of the firm.
The judgment is reversed with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Mich. 493, 1860 Mich. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-canfield-mich-1860.