Michigan Supreme Court, 1876

Danaher v. Garlock

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided January 18, 1876

33 Mich. 295; 1876 Mich. LEXIS 37

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Wierman v. Bay City-Michigan Sugar Co. (Mich. 1905)
In re Lee (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division 1905)
People ex rel. Boenert v. Barrett (Ill. 1903)
Somerville v. Wabash Railroad (Mich. 1896)

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

Per Curiam :

We think there is no material distinction between this case and Wells v. Martin, 32 Mich., 478, as to the proof introduced to show liability.

. We discover no evidence in the record tending to show an original undertaking by Danaher, or any act of ratification of any arrangement which Fahy & Dye may have made, and the bill of exceptions states that the substance of all the testimony given is set out; and the judge, after refer*296ring in his charge to the evidence supposed to bear on the point, stated that it was substantially the testimony produced by both parties.

The judgment should be set aside, with costs, and a new trial ordered.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.