Wright v. Reinelt

Michigan Supreme Court

Wright v. Reinelt

77 N.W. 246, 118 Mich. 638, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1063

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 77 N.W. 246 (Wright v. Reinelt) 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

Wright v. Reinelt, 77 N.W. 246, 118 Mich. 638, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1063 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

Plaintiff brought suit in justice’s court, and recovered a verdict against both defendants. Both appealed. In the circuit court, plaintiff recovered verdict against defendant Charles, and the jury found defendant John not liable. The suit was for work and labor, claiming balance on settlement. In the circuit court, defendants pleaded a set-off.

The record contains none of the testimony, and the sole point raised is on the charge of the court. From this it appears that defendant Charles admitted his liability. The sole contention of defendant is that the suit was based apon a joint liability, and that the court erred in not instructing the jury that, if they found there was no joint liability, they must render a verdict for defendants. Cir. •Ct. Rule No. 27(c) was adopted to meet such cases as this which originated in the circuit courts. Bur gin v. Smith, 115 Mich. 239. It has no application to cases originating in justices courts. Anderson v. Robinson, 38 Mich: 407. The instruction should have been given.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, C. J.

Plaintiff brought suit in justice’s court, and recovered a verdict against both defendants. Both appealed. In the circuit court, plaintiff recovered verdict against defendant Charles, and the jury found defendant John not liable. The suit was for work and labor, claiming balance on settlement. In the circuit court, defendants pleaded a set-off.

The record contains none of the testimony, and the sole point raised is on the charge of the court. From this it appears that defendant Charles admitted his liability. The sole contention of defendant is that the suit was based apon a joint liability, and that the court erred in not instructing the jury that, if they found there was no joint liability, they must render a verdict for defendants. Cir. •Ct. Rule No. 27(c) was adopted to meet such cases as this which originated in the circuit courts. Bur gin v. Smith, 115 Mich. 239. It has no application to cases originating in justices courts. Anderson v. Robinson, 38 Mich: 407. The instruction should have been given.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 N.W. 246, 118 Mich. 638, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-reinelt-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack