Smith v. Canfield
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kingman Mills v. Furner (W. Va. 1921)
- McGowan v. Lamb (Mich. 1887)
- Kalamazoo Trust Co. v. Merrill (Mich. 1910)
- Frank v. Tatum (Tex. 1894)
- Barber v. Smith (Mich. 1879)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.