139 Mich.

Volume 139 — Michigan Reports

146 opinions

139 Mich. 1Teagan Transportation Co. v. Board of Assessors (1905)Affirmed
Separate applications for mandamus by the Teagan Transportation Company, the Duluth & Atlantic Transportation Company, and the Wolverine Steamship Company to compel the board of assessors of the city of Detroit to strike certain assessments from the tax rolls. To review orders denying the writs, relators bring certiorari.
139 Mich. 12Scott v. Longwell (1905)Affirmed
Case by Charlotte Scott against George W. Longwell, Sr., and the First National Bank of Paw Paw for damages caused by flooding. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
139 Mich. 18Stowell v. Standard Oil Co. (1905)Affirmed
Case by Elmer Stowell against the Standard Oil Company for personal injuries.. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 26People ex rel. C. H. Little Co. v. Grant (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by the people of the State of Michigan, for the use and benefit of the C. H. Little Company, against James Grant as principal, and Julius Porath and John A. Mercier as sureties, upon a statutory bond. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendants bring error.
139 Mich. 30Power v. City of Detroit (1905)Modified
Cross-appeals from Wayne; Rohnert, J. Bill by William. H. Power and others against the city of Detroit and Albert Stoll, receiver of taxes, to set aside an assessment of benefits on opening a street. From the decree rendered, all parties appeal.
139 Mich. 40Louisell v. Benzie Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by M. E. Louisell, prosecuting attorney of Benzie county, to compel Clyde C. Chittenden, circuit judge of Benzie county, to vacate an order quashing an information.
139 Mich. 43Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Co. v. McKenna (1905)Affirmed
Appeal from Dickinson; Stone, J. Bill by the Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Company against Mary T. McKenna, Thomas McKenna, and John K. Stack for the specific performance of a contract. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.
139 Mich. 47Love v. Ramsey (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by William Love against William J. Ramsey for goods sold and 'delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error. Plaintiff sued defendant in justice’s court to recover for a small bill of lumber claimed to have been sold by him to defendant. The declaration is on the common counts. A bill of particulars was furnished, setting forth the' amount and price of the lumber.
139 Mich. 51Fletcher v. Johnson (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Frank W. Fletcher against William H. Johnson' for the specific performance of a contract. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.
139 Mich. 55Great Western Smelting & Refining Co. v. Evening News Ass'n (1905)Affirmed
Trover by the Great Western Smelting & Refining Company against the Evening News Association. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 61Manzer v. Phillips (1905)Reversed
Error to Shiawassee; Smith, J. Case by Mary Manzer against Anna Phillips and others ■under the civil-damage act. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 69Hubert v. Traeder (1905)Affirmed
1. Husband and Wife — Joint Tenancy — Survivorship. Neither the contract nor the will of a husband can affect the title to lands owned by himself and wife as joint tenants. 2. Cancellation of Deed — Evidence. On a bill to set aside a deed appearing to have been given by an aged woman, without advice of counsel, in settlement of a groundless claim of the grantee, evidence examined, and held, that a decree granting the relief prayed was proper.
139 Mich. 72Fairbairn v. Houghten (1905)Reversed, and bill dismissed
Bill by Thomas Fairbairn and others against Henry Houghten and another for an accounting. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 79Murphy v. Dalton (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by Joseph Murphy and Fred A. Diggins, ■copartners as Murphy & Diggins, against John Dalton for money had and received. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiffs bring error. Plaintiffs’ declaration is upon the common counts in assumpsit. A bill of particulars was furnished, which specified four items “of money lent defendant by plaintiffs,” giving dates.
139 Mich. 82Central Savings Bank v. O'Connor (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the Central Savings Bank against George M. O’Connor and William J. Hammond on promissory notes. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendants bring error.
139 Mich. 85In re Toepel (1905)
1. Coroners — Fraudulent Claims — Presentation to Court— Punishment. The presentation and allowance of a coroner’s claim for an inquest on the body of an alleged deceased stranger, under section 11828, 8 Comp. Laws, not being subject to review by the auditor general, such claim, when filed, is a proceeding depending in the circuit court, within section 10891, 8 Comp. Laws, authorizing punishment of coroners for misbehavior in office, willful negligence, or violation of duty therein, as to any cause or matter depending in a court of record. 2. Same — Allowance of Claim — Judicial Act. The determination and allowance of such claim involves the exercise of judicial discretion and judgment by the court, and is therefore a judicial act. 3. Same — Contempt—Prima Facie Case. Affidavits charging the presentation by a coroner of fraudulent, claims against the State to the circuit court for fees and expenses in holding an inquest on the body of an alleged stranger, under section 11828,3 Comp. Laws, examined, andheMto establish a prima facie case of misconduct on the part of the coroner, warranting the issuance of an order to answer why he should not be punished for contempt. 4. Same — Presentation to Court — Sufficiency. It appearing from the affidavits that the claim found its way into the hands of the judge, and was supported by the coroner’s certificate, which could only have been made for presentation to the court, and that the amount of the bill was receipted for by defendant, the affidavits were not objectionable for failure to affirmatively allege that the claim was ever presented to the court. 5. Same — Auditing Claim — Record. Where a coroner presented a fraudulent claim against the State1 to the circuit judge for allowance, the contempt of court was. complete on presentation of such claim; and it was not, therefore, material that the order allowing it was not entered of record. 6. Same — Contempt—Disqualification of Judge. The judge who allowed a fraudulent coroner’s claim is not disqualified from acting in proceedings to punish the coroner for contempt in presenting the fraudulent claim.
139 Mich. 90Vincent v. Benzie Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by William Vincent to compel Clyde C. Chittenden, circuit judge of Benzie county, to vacate an order setting aside a decree.
139 Mich. 92Ideal Manufacturing Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by the Ideal Manufacturing Company to compel Joseph W. Donovan, circuit judge of Wayne county, to issue a temporary injunction
139 Mich. 94Rogers v. Babcock (1905)Affirmed
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Assumpsit by Lincoln S. Rogers against Adelbert H. Babcock for rent. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 100Hopper v. Livingston Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by Hiram Hopper to compel Stearns F. Smith, circuit judge of Livingston county, to vacate an order allowing an appeal from the probate court.
139 Mich. 102In re Tubbs (1905)
Habeas corpus proceedings by George Tubbs, Levi Tubbs, and Charles Tubbs to obtain their release upon bail' from the county jail of Eaton county.
139 Mich. 104Kaufman v. Leonard (1905)Affirmed
Replevin by Adelaide Kaufman against Henry J. Leonard and Thomas Y. Leonard, copartners as Leonard Brothers. There was judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error. The household goods of the plaintiff and her husband were damaged by fire.
139 Mich. 106Mannel v. Detroit, Mt. Clemens & Marine City Railway (1905)Affirmed
Clair; Law, J. Bill by William Mannel against the Detroit, Mt. Clemens & Marine City Railway to restrain the changing of a curve in defendant’s track. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.
139 Mich. 111Rickels v. Log-Owners' Booming Co. (1905)Affirmed
Case by Ebel Rickels against the Log-Owners’ Booming Company for damages for - flooding plaintiff’s land. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. The plaintiff is the owner of certain lowlands lying on either side of Four-Mile creek, a small stream that flows into the Muskegon river a short distance above Muskegon Lake.
139 Mich. 123Hall v. Marshall (1905)Affirmed
Cross-appeals from Wayne; Hosmer, J. Bill by Theodore P. Hall against Kate L. Marshall and others to determine the lien of certain mortgages and for their foreclosure. From the decree rendered, complainant and defendant Kate L. Marshall appeal.
139 Mich. 126Cadillac State Bank v. Wexford Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by the Cadillac State Bank to compel Clyde O. Chittenden, circuit judge of Wexford county, to sign a case made.
139 Mich. 130Simons v. Haberkorn (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by George M. Simons, by next friend, against James H. A. Haberkorn for work and labor done. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 133Smith v. Smith (1905)Reversed
Bill by Edwin W. Smith against Elma L. Smith for a divorce: On petition for an order reducing the amount of alimony. From an order awarding a gross amount, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 136Fairfield v. Hart (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by George W. Fairfield against George A. Hart for services rendered. Ther§ was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 139Napper v. Fitzpatrick (1905)Affirmed
Ejectment by Robert Napper ■ against John E. Fitzpatrick and others. There was judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 140Massi v. Lavine (1905)Affirmed
Bill by August Massi and another against Morris Lavine and another for the cancellation of a deed. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants.appeal. The purpose of this suit is to, obtain .the cancellation of a deed made by complainants to defendant Morris Lavine. Complainants’ claim is: That Mr. Massi was one of the sureties upon the bond of one Mrs. Lainorand as administratrix, the bond being in the sum of $500.
139 Mich. 143Letts v. Trevallick (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Charles E. Letts against Roberta Trevallick and others to remove a cloud from the title to land. From a decree for complainant, defendant Trevallick appeals. Complainant, the owner in fee simple of the lands described in this bill of complaint, filed the bill against the defendants to remove a cloud from title caused by the existence of tax leases issued by the city of Detroit for unpaid taxes. Defendant Prentis filed a disclaimer.
139 Mich. 146Weber v. Costigan (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Joseph F. Weber against Theresa L. Costigan and others for the foreclosure of a mortgage. From an order confirming commissioner’s sale, defendant Costigan appeals. '
139 Mich. 148Martin v. Farmers' Mutual Fire-Insurance (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by John F. Martin against the Farmers’ Mutual Fire-Insurance Company of Calhoun County on a policy of insurance. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 153Truax v. Bliss (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by Jerome Truax against Almond L. Bliss for money alleged to have been paid under a mistake. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 156Recor v. St. Clair Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus — When Lies — Appealable Order — Quashing Garnishment. Under section 10642, 3 Comp. Laws, an order quashing a writ of garnishment, and releasing the garnishee from further liability, with costs to defendant, is in effect a final judgment against plaintiff in the garnishment proceeding, reviewable on error, and hence mandamus does not lie to review such order and to compel the circuit judge to vacate the same.
139 Mich. 159Laing v. Township of Forest (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by Paul L. Laing against the township of Forest for taxes paid under protest. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 163Goldsmith v. Lichtenberg (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by William E. Goldsmith against F. William Lichtenberg and Christian J. Lichtenberg, copartners as Lichtenberg & Sons, for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 166Lamb v. Lamb (1905)Affirmed
Error to Calhoun; Hopkins, J. Ejectment by Charles R. Lamb against Sanford Lamb. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 171Shaller v. Detroit United Railway (1905)Affirmed
Case by John Shaller against the Detroit United Railway for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 173Conroy v. Detroit United Railway (1905)Affirmed
Case by Joseph Conroy against the Detroit United Railway for personal injuries. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff, a resident of Detroit, was returning to his home one evening about 10 o’clock on a car of the defendant. He had informed the conductor where he desired to alight. The car was an open one, with seats running across, and steps on each side.
139 Mich. 176Lafferty v. Lafferty (1905)Affirmed
Bill in aid of execution by Edward Lafferty against Sophia Lafferty and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. The bill in this case was tiled in aid of an execution. Complainant brought suit at law against one Peter Lafferty, and attached the land described in the bill. Peter Lafferty died while suit was pending. An administrator was appointed, and the suit revived against him.
139 Mich. 180Sherman v. Sherman (1905)
Bill by John Sherman against John Carr Sherman to set aside a deed. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals: On motion by defendant for an extension of time to perfect an appeal, and motion by complainant to dismiss said appeal.
139 Mich. 183Schellenber v. Frank (1905)Affirmed
Trespass quare clausum fregit by Harry L. Shellenberg and another against Max Frank. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiffs bring error.
139 Mich. 186Cutcher v. City of Detroit (1905)Affirmed
Case by Joseph D. Cutcher against the city of Detroit for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. The city of Detroit by virtue of its charter lawfully permitted the Detroit Transit Railway Company to run its track along Guoin street, and to run a side track or switch from the main line,' near the center of the street, onto the premises of a manufacturing company. The street was not paved.
139 Mich. 188Mumford v. Starmont (1905)Affirmed
Case by Wheeler Mumford against Adolph M. Starmont and James F. Hammell for false imprisonment. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendants bring error.
139 Mich. 194Valley City Desk Co. v. Kent Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus — Setting Aside Default — Remedy by Error. The action of the circuit judge in refusing to set aside a default and judgment on the ground that under the facts shown the court had no jurisdiction will not be controlled by mandamus, the question being determinable on error.
139 Mich. 198Hallwood Cash Register Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus — Setting Aside Default — Discretion of Court — Remedy by Error. Where the circuit judge has acted on a motion to set aside a default and permit the filing of an amended plea, by granting the motion on condition that defendant appear and plead to the merits, mandamus will not lie to compel him to vacate the conditions, as the court’s exercise of discretion will not be interfered with, and any error in the decision may be reviewed by allowing the case to go to judgment and raising-the question by writ of error or case made.
139 Mich. 200Coulter v. Minion (1905)Reversed, and decree entered for complainant
Bill by Mary E. Coulter against Irvin W. Minion and another for subrogation to the rights of a mortgagee of property obtained by defendants through fraud. From a decree dismissing a bill, complainant appeals.
139 Mich. 203Lingle v. Owosso Sugar Co. (1905)Keversed
Trover by Ann E. Lingle against the Owosso Sugar Company. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 209Trombly v. Klersy (1905)Reversed, and decree entered for complainant
Bill by Robert Trombly, guardian of Joseph Buhler, an incompetent, against Andrew Klersy and another for the foreclosure of certain mortgages. Defendants filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill claiming an agreement for the cancellation of said mortgages at the death of the mortgagee, and prayed ¥or specific performance. From a decree for defendants, complainant appeals.
139 Mich. 211McDonald v. Smith (1905)Affirmed conditionally
Case by John P. McDonald against George N. Smith, Albert B. Cummins, and Darius W. Gunn for fraud. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Smith brings error.
139 Mich. 225Smith v. McDonald (1905)Affirmed
, presiding. Assumpsit by George N. Smith against John P. McDonald and Mary McDonald on a promissory note. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings-error.
139 Mich. 230Bradley v. Williams (1905)Affirmed
Appeal from Muskegon; Russell, J. Petition by William Bradley against John Williams and another for a writ of assistance. From a decree for petitioner, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 232Lester v. Addison (1905)Affirmed
Joseph; Yaple, J. Trover by Bernard H. Lester and another against William R. Addison. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiffs bring error.
139 Mich. 233Kern v. Arbeiter Unterstuetzungs Verein (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Rudolph Kern and others against the Arbeiter Unterstuetzungs Verein and others to restrain the payment of a benefit certificate. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 246Canal Construction Co. v. Schlickum (1905)Affirmed
Mandamus by the Canal Construction Company to compel Charles Schlickum, supervisor of Blumfield township, to spread a certain tax. To review an order granting the writ, respondent brings certiorari.
139 Mich. 248Ablard v. Detroit United Railway (1905)Affirmed
Case by Thomas Ablard against the Detroit United Bail-way for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 256Brigham v. Reau (1905)Affirmed
Appeal from Monroe; Lockwood, J. Bills by Charles O. Brigham and Sarah C. Pheatt and others against Isadore Reau and others to quiet title to land and to restrain certain actions of ejectment. Prom decrees for complainants, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 265Stone v. Pontiac, Oxford & Northern Railroad (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Charles H. Stone, individually and as executor of the last will and testament of ■ Augusta W. ‘Stone, deceased, and others, against the Pontiac, Oxford & Northern Railroad Company and others for an accounting, and for the appointment of a receiver. From an order overruling demurrers, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 269Cummings v. Dixon (1905)Affirmed
Trespass quare clausum fregit by Edward C. -Cummings against Thomas T. Dixon and another. From a judgment for defendants on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 273Lever v. Grant (1905)Reversed
Appeal from Wayne; Mandell, J. Bill by Elmer T. Lever against Archibald Grant to restrain an obstruction of an alleged right of way. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 278Frohlich v. Beecher (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Edward Frohlich against George L. Beecher and Charles B. Ward to enforce a mechanic’s lien. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. The object of this bill is to enforce a mechanic’s lien, under chapter 396, 3 Comp. Laws. Defendant Beecher was the owner of the premises on which the building was erected.
139 Mich. 280Forbes v. City of Detroit (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Jeannette Fisher Forbes against the city of Detroit and D. W. H. Moreland, commissioner of public works, to restrain the revocation of a building license. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Bill by Leopold Freud against Jeannette Fisher Forbes to abate a nuisance. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 284Voigt Brewery Co. v. Pacifico (1905)Affirmed
Summary proceedings by the Voigt Brewery Company, Limited, against Louis (Luciano) Pacifico to recover the possession of a certain building. There was judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, and complainant brings error.
139 Mich. 287Johnson v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co. (1905)Affirmed
Case by Nelson Johnson against Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company for killing cattle. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 289Howatt v. Green (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Charles Howatt and another against John H. Green and another to quiet title to land. From a decree for complainants, defendant Green appeals.
139 Mich. 296Alderton v. Williams (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by George A. Alderton against Charles E. Williams and Lafayette C. Williams upon promissory notes. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 303Walters v. Detroit United Railway (1905)Affirmed
Case by Guy A. Walters and Charles M. Smith, co-partners as Guy A. Walters & Company, against the Detroit United Railway for goods destroyed while in transit. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 306Lewis v. Board of Education (1905)Affirmed
Mandamus by Henry B. Lewis to compel the board of education of the city of Detroit to award a contract to relator. There was an order granting the writ, and respondent brings certiorari.
139 Mich. 311Trombly v. Klersy (1905)
Motion by Robert Trombly, guardian of Joseph Buhler, an incompetent, against Andrew Klersy to dismiss an appeal.
139 Mich. 312People ex rel. Cook v. Cole (1905)Affirmed
Debt by the People of the State of Michigan, for the use and benefit of William W. Cook, against Sidney S. Cole, principal, and John H. Earley, surety, upon a notary’s bond. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 318Cass Farm Co. v. City of Detroit (1905)Affirmed
Bill by the Cass Farm Company, Limited, against the city of Detroit and another to quiet title. From an order overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 320Kenney v. Apley (1905)Affirmed
Clair; Tappan and Law, JJ. Bill by Bernard Kenney against Thomas Apley to restrain a trespass upon certain land. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 322Sweet v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by Charles E. Sweet and Clyde W. Ketcham, copartners as Sweet & Ketcham, against the Western Union Telegraph Company for an alleged failure to deliver a message. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.
139 Mich. 334Sloman v. William D. C. Moebs Co. (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by Morris H. Sloman against William D. C. Moebs Company for breach of a contract to purchase certain intoxicating liquors. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. This case was heard by the court without a jury, and the facts and law found as follows: “Facts. “1.
139 Mich. 337Clute v. Ionia Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by William K. Clute, acting prosecuting attorney of Ionia county, to compel Frank D. M. Davis, circuit judge of Ionia county, to vacate an order quashing an information.
139 Mich. 341Buxton v. Emery (1905)Reversed
Benjamin W. Buxton presented for probate the last “will and testament of Jennie E. Buxton, deceased. The will was allowed in the probate court, and Ralph Emery, .guardian of Robert T. Emery, appealed to the circuit court. There was judgment at the circuit for proponent, .and contestant brings error.
139 Mich. 347Village of Plymouth v. Pere Marquette Railroad (1905)Affirmed
Proceedings by the village of Plymouth against the Pere Marquette Railroad Company to condemn a right of way for a street crossing. From an order confirming the award of the jury, respondent appeals.
139 Mich. 351Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grand Rapids Bridge Co. (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, against the Grand Rapids Bridge Company for a premium upon a policy of insurance. There was judgment for plaintiff for less than the amount claimed, and both parties bring error.
139 Mich. 357Sachs v. Norn (1905)Reversed
Garnishment proceedings by Henry W. Sachs and Louis E. Wenzel, copartners as Sachs & Wenzel, against James Norn as garnishee defendant of the Rifle River Lumber Company. The Lumberman’s State Bank was permitted to intervene as claimant. There was judgment for defendant bank on verdict directed by the court, and plaintiffs bring error.
139 Mich. 365Wilcox v. Wilcox (1905)Reversed
Mary D. Wilcox presented a claim against the estate of Levi Wilcox, deceased, for money loaned during his lifetime. The claim was allowed in part in the probate court, and Frank Wilcox, an heir at law, appealed to the circuit court. There was judgment for contestant on verdict directed by the court, and claimant brings error.
139 Mich. 372Brown v. Harris (1905)Affirmed
Error to Wayne; Erazer, J. Assumpsit by Louis Brown against Saul Harris, Benjamin Harris, Joseph A. Zechman, and George D. Clark, copartners as Harris Bros. & Co., for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff, ahd defendants bring error.
139 Mich. 378Coffee v. Pere Marquette Railroad (1905)Affirmed
Case by John Coffee against the Pere Marquette Railroad Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 382Harris v. Brandenburg (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Albert M. Harris against Christina Brandenburg for the specific performance of a land contract. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 383George D. Sisson Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Haak (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the George D. Sisson Lumber & Shingle Company against Harry K. Haak for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 386McDonell v. Union Trust Co. (1905)Affirmed
Garnishment proceedings by Archibald McDonell and Patrick W. O’Connor, copartners as McDonell Bros. & Company, against the Union Trust Company as garnishee defendant of the Traverse City, Leelanau & Manistique Railroad Company. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and the garnishee defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 387Reynolds v. Cavanagh (1905)Affirmed
Case by Eliza Reynolds against Howard W. Cavanagh and Charles R. Mains for wrongfully converting a judgment. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Cavanagh brings error'.
139 Mich. 392Garrison v. Union Trust Co. (1905)Reversed
Petition by William D. Garrison and Arthur Garrison, doing business under the name of Exchange Bank, against the Union Trust Company, receiver of the City Savings Bank of Detroit, for the return of a deposit made after the insolvency of defendant bank. The State Bank of Carson City also filed a petition praying for the return of a draft sent for collection. The petitions were heard as one, and from the order entered the Garrisons appeal.
139 Mich. 406National Cash Register Co. v. Dehn (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by the National Cash Register Company against August E. Dehn and Carl O. Dehn, copartners as Dehn Bros., for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. This is an action in assumpsit to recover the entire purchase price for two cash registers sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendants on August 10, 1903.
139 Mich. 416Cresswell v. Robertson (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by James L. Cresswell and Frank A. Hesse, copartners as the Detroit Cornice & Slate Company, against Robert Robertson for work and labor done. There was judgment for plaintiffs on a verdict, directed by the court, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 423Wilson v. Royal Neighbors of America (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by John W. Wilson against the Royal Neighbors of America on a policy of insurance. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 429Maney v. Lamphere (1905)Reversed
Trespass quare clausum fregit by Lillie Maney against Leman B. Lamphere and Helen Lamphere. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 432Wolverine Lumber Co. v. Palatine Insurance (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the Wolverine Lumber Company, Limited, against the Palatine Insurance Company, of London, England, on a policy of insurance. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error. ’
139 Mich. 435Wolverine Lumber Co. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance (1905)Affirmed
Error to Bay; Shepard, J. Assumpsit by the Wolverine Lumber Company, Limited, against the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company, of Liverpool, England, on a policy of insurance. There was judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 436Pere Marquette Railroad v. Kalkaska Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by the Pere Marquette Railroad Company to compel Clyde C. Chittenden, circuit judge of Kalkaska county, to vacate a restraining order in a decree.
139 Mich. 440Garr v. Alden (1905)Affirmed
Bill by Martha A. Garr and Harriet Garr against Horace G. Alden and «Frank B. Smith to cancel a contract for the sale of certain timber. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 442People v. Sanders (1905)Affirmed
1. Embezzlement — Deputy Treasurer — Authority to Appoint. Where a township treasurer’s deputy is prosecuted for embezzlement of township funds, under section 11612, 3 Comp. Laws, it is immaterial whether the treasurer could lawfully appoint a deputy or permit respondent to act as his representative. 2. Same — Trial—Instruotions. In a prosecution of a deputy township treasurer for embezzlement, an instruction that defendant cannot be convicted if he paid out for township orders or deposited in the bank all money received by him for taxes, ignores the claim that he drew from the bank and embezzled the money, and was therefore properly refused. 3. Criminal Trials — Power oe Jury. The jury is not the judge of the law in criminal cases. 4. Same — Evidence—Other Oeeenses. In a prosecution of a deputy township treasurer for embezzlement it was proper to show that defendant, by reason of his default as village treasurer, found it necessary to replenish that account, which he did with funds drawn from the township treasury. 5. Same — Argument of Prosecutor. In the prosecution of a deputy township treasurer for embezzlement, the prosecuting attorney in his argument stated that the treasurer committed a gross indiscretion when he put his trust in defendant, because defendant did not deserve that trust; that defendant was a thief, and the treasurer did not know it, and put his trust “in this young thief, who stole the money from the township,” etc. Held, that the argument was a legitimate one.
139 Mich. 447Mercer v. Leihy (1905)Affirmed
Case made from Wayne; Brooke, J. Assumpsit by George Mercer against George W. Leihy and another for an alleged breach of warranty on the sale of certain horses. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
139 Mich. 455McCall Co. v. Jacobson (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by the McCall Company against Moses I. Jacobson and others for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
139 Mich. 461Fryszka v. Prybeski (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by Stanley Fryszka against William V. Prybeski for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 463Smith v. Kent Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by Connor H. Smith, county clerk of Kent county, to compel Willis B. Perkins, circuit judge of Kent county, to vacate an order receiving a bank certificate of deposit as security for costs. In a suit pending in the circuit court for the county of Kent, the respondent, on motion of the defendant, made an order requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs by filing a bond in the sum of $150.
139 Mich. 466Board of Supervisors v. Edmunds (1905)Affirmed
Mandamus by the board of supervisors of Bay county to compel Peter Edmunds, supervisor of the township of Gibson, to appear with his assessment roll and act as a member of said board. There was an order granting the writ, and respondent brings certiorari.
139 Mich. 471Palmer v. City of Port Huron (1905)Reversed, and bill dismissed
Clair; Tappan, J. Bill by Thomas W. Palmer against the city of Port Huron and others to set aside a paving assessment. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 474Nowack v. Lehmann (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by Ferdinand C. Nowack against William Lehmann upon a promissory note. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. This suit is brought to recover upon a promissory note dated December 4, 1893, executed by the defendant, payable on or before two years from date, to plaintiff, trustee, with interest at 6 per cent, per annum.
139 Mich. 477Randall v. Detroit & Northwestern Railway (1905)Reversed
Assumpsit by James A. Randall against the Detroit & Northwestern Railway for services rendered. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 479Van Haaften v. Van Haaften (1905)Reversed, and bill dismissed
Appeal from Kalamazoo; -Adams, J. Bill by Ive Van Haaften against Antonia Van Haaften' and Walter Hoek, as guardian of defendant Van Haaften, to annul a marriage. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 484Line v. Spies (1905)Affirmed conditionally
1. Slander — Actionable Words. To say of another, “He is a thief,” is prima facie actionable. 2. Same — Evidence—Surrounding Ciroumstanoes. In an action for slander the surrounding circumstances and connection in which the words were used may be shown for the purpose of proving that the words could not have been understood as imputing a crime. 3. Same — Ciroumstanoes. Language used toward another is actionable if, in the circumstances under which it was used, the hearer would reasonably understand tlpat it was intended to impute a crime. 4. Same — Damages. In an action by an attorney for slander, where there is no evidence of injury to plaintiff in his profession, it is error to leave that question to the jury.
139 Mich. 490Whitehead v. Board of Education (1905)Affirmed
Case by Harry Whitehead against the board of education of the city of Detroit for personal injuries. There was judgment for defendant on demurrer, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 495Bialy v. Bay City (1905)Reversed, and judgment entered for plaintiff
Case made from Bay; Shepard, J. Assumpsit by Robert C. Bialy against Bay City to recover taxes paid under protest. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
139 Mich. 509Place v. Place (1905)Reversed
1. Limitation of Actions — Interruption — Sufficiency — Adverse Possession. Under section 9721, 3 Comp. Laws, mere disturbance of the ^ possession of one claiming land is not sufficient to interrupt the running of limitations once begun. 2. Estoppel — Pleadings. The fact that defendant filed a petition for alimony, in which she stated that plaintiff owned the' land in controversy, does not estop her from asserting title to such property, where the alimony was not granted. 3. Trial — Instructions—Credibility of Witnesses. An instruction on the credibility of a party as a witness which improperly assumes that he was guilty of perjury in a prior suit is reversible error. 4. Same — Harmless Error. A judgment will not be reversed for error which would have been corrected at the time but for appellant’s failure to call the court’s attention to it.
139 Mich. 512Strong v. Weber (1905)Affirmed
Case by Arthur Strong against Henry Weber for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 514City of Battle Creek v. Haak (1904)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the city of Battle Creek against Harry K. Haak to recover money obtained by. fraud and deceit. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 530Parkinson v. Parkinson (1905)Reversed, and bill dismissed
Bill by Jane E. Parkinson against Charles A. Parkinson, Ida J. Parkinson, Norman Parkinson, and Edward A. Parkinson to construe the last will and testament of Alva Ewers, deceased, and to quiet title. From a decree for complainant, defendants Norman and Edward A. Parkinson appeal.
139 Mich. 539Hayward v. School District No. 9 (1905)Reversed
Trespass quare clausum fregit by Thomas Hayward against school district No. 9 of the township of Hope. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 544Wells v. Montcalm Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by Maude M. Wells to compel Frank D. M. Davis, circuit judge of Montcalm county, to set aside an order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction and dismiss a bill of complaint.
139 Mich. 546Hanselman v. Adrion (1905)
Case by Frederick Hanselman against Charles Adrion for slander. There was judgment for plaintiff for less than the amount claimed, and he brings error. On motion to dismiss.
139 Mich. 548City of Detroit v. Board of Inspectors of Election (1905)Reversed
Mandamus by the city of Detroit to compel the board of inspectors of election for the Fourth election district of the Second ward of the city of Detroit to use certain voting machines. There was an order denying the writ, and relator brings certiorari.
139 Mich. 557Buhler v. Trombly (1905)Reversed, and decree entered for defendant
Bill by Christian F. Buhler against Robert Trombly, guardian of Joseph Buhler, an incompetent, to enforce a parol agreement for the occupancy of certain real estate, and to restrain summary proceedings for the possession of the same. From a decree for' complainant, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 575Love v. Halladay (1905)Affirmed
Case by Sarah A. Love against Oliver A. Halladay and Burton P. Love for false imprisonment. There was judgment for plaintiff against defendant Halladay, and she brings error.
139 Mich. 578Jewell v. Jewell's Estate (1905)Affirmed
James M. Jewell presented a claim against the estate of Joseph B. Jewell, deceased, for money loaned by decedent as claimant’s agent. The claim was disallowed in the probate court, and claimant appealed to the circuit court. There was judgment for claimant at the circuit, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 590Weaver v. Ann Arbor Railroad (1905)Affirmed
Case by Lizzie Weaver, administratrix of the estate of John H. Weaver, deceased, against the Ann Arbor Railroad Company for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 602Lasley v. Delano (1905)Eeversed, and bill dismissed
Bill by Isabel A. Lasley against Horace L. Delano and Cora A. Delano for an accounting. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal.
139 Mich. 608Rhoades v. Seidel (1905)Affirmed
Case by Joseph A. Rhoades against August F. Seidel and Victoria Seidel for damages caused by the defective condition of a house rented from defendants. There was judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 612Kellogg v. Frohlich (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by Spencer Kellogg against Edward Frohlich for breach of a contract to purchase certain oil. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Plaintiff, a resident of Buffalo, N. Y., made a contract with the defendant, residing in Detroit, and doing business under the name of Edward Frohlich Glass Company. The contract, dated July 17, 1902, was in two parts, one signed by the plaintiff, and the other by the defendant.
139 Mich. 618Cady v. St. Clair Circuit Judge (1905)
Mandamus by Burt D. Cady, prosecuting attorney, to compel Eugene P. Law, circuit judge, of St. Clair county, to vacate an order discharging a prisoner from arrest.
139 Mich. 621Wilkinson v. Dunkley-Williams Co. (1905)Affirmed
Appeal from Van Burén; Carr, J. Bill by Thomas L. Wilkinson against the DunkleyWilliams Company to restrain an encroachment upon land. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 623Finn v. Sowders' Estate (1905)Reversed
Christie Finn presented a claim against the estate of Minerva Sowders, deceased, for services rendered. The claim was allowed in part by the commissioners, and defendant appealed to the circuit court. There was judgment for claimant at the circuit, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 627Wetmore v. Dean (1905)Reversed
' Assumpsit by Frank E. Wetmore against Charles M. Dean for the amount of¡a judgment. Plaintiff had judgment in the justice’s court, and defendant appealed to the circuit court by writ of certiorari.There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 628Cooper v. Lawson (1905)Affirmed
Case by George W. Cooper against George E. Lawson and Thomas J. Kennedy, administrators of the estate of Thomas Kennedy, deceased, for damages caused by fire in premises rented from defendants. There was judginent for defendants on a verdict directed by the court, .and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 634Woodruff v. Coffman (1905)Affirmed
Appeal from Mason; McAlvay, J. Bill by John S. Woodruff against Ira R. Coffman for the foreclosure of a mortgage. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.
139 Mich. 638Howe v. Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railroad (1905)Affirmed
Case by Eva Howe and Frances Roach against the Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw Railroad Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 643Village of Morrice v. Sutton (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the village of Morrice against Edward Sutton and George Mackey, copartners as Sutton & Mackey, for money had and received. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
139 Mich. 654Sheldon v. Carr (1905)Reversed, and bill dismissed
Bill by Harvey Sheldon and another against Allen G. Carr and others to establish an interest in certain land. From a decree for complainants, defendant Carr appeals.
139 Mich. 664Powers v. Briggs (1905)Affirmed
1. Sales — Warranty—Breach—Question for Jury. Plaintiff, in an effort to sell a hay loader to defendant, warranted that it would do certain work. Defendant declined to purchase the machine, but afterwards the matter was again taken up, and the machine was ordered. Held, that it was a question for the jury whether the original warranty entered into the contract of sale as finally made. 2. Same — Return of Goods — Delay—Reasonableness. In an action for the price of a hay loader, rejected on account of breach of warranty, circumstances examined, and held, that the delay in returning the machine was not, as a matter of law, unreasonable.
139 Mich. 668Oliver Chilled Plow Works v. Dolan (1905)Reversed
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Replevin by the Oliver Chilled Plow Works against Patrick H. Dolan. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 673People v. Schneider (1905)Affirmed
John P. Schneider was convicted of-a violation of an ordinance regulating the use and speed of automobiles and other motor vehicles.
139 Mich. 680People v. Peck (1905)Reversed
Exceptions before judgment from Muskegon; Russell, J. William Peck was convicted of embezzlement.
139 Mich. 687People v. McPhee (1905)Affirmed
Exceptions before judgment from Chippewa; Steere, J. Monroe J. McPhee was convicted of conducting a lottery.
139 Mich. 694Blanchard v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co. (1905)Affirmed
Case by Louis Blanchard against the Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 698F. & F. Lumber Co. v. Township of Thompson (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the E. & F. Lumber Company, Limited, against the township of Thompson for taxes paid under protest. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 699Hammond v. Tuttle (1905)Affirmed
Trespass quare clausum fregit by Carmi Hammond against Andrew Tuttle. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Plaintiff and defendant are farmers owning adjoining farms. Defendant’s sheep trespassed upon plaintiff’s lands, injuring his corn, for which he brought suit and recovered a small judgment in the justice and circuit courts.
139 Mich. 701Grand Lodge, Independent Order of Odd Fellows v. Barker (1905)Affirmed
Bill by the Grand Lodge, Independent Order of Odd-fellows of the State of Michigan, against George H. Barker and others to set aside a certain conveyance, and for an accounting. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. The complainant was organized in 1847. It incorporated June 5, 1867, under Act No. 199, Laws of 1865 (2 Comp. Laws, §§ 7990-8000). It reincorporated in September, 1899.
139 Mich. 706Page Woven Wire Fence Co. v. Pool (1905)Affirmed
Assumpsit by the Page Woven Wire Fence Company against Phoebe M. Pool on a promissory note. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
139 Mich. 708Hathaway v. Washington Milling Co. (1905)Reversed
Case by Richard Hathaway against the Washington Milling Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
139 Mich. 712In re Allen (1905)
1. Criminal Law — Punishment —Prisons—Lewd and Lascivious Cohabitation. On conviction of lewd and lascivious cohabitation, an offense for which the punishment provided is “imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year, or fine not exceeding five hundred dollars” (§ 11693, 3 Comp. Laws), the offender may be sentenced either to the State house of correction at Ionia or to the branch prison at Marquette, but not to the State prison at Jackson. Section 2108, 1 Comp. Laws. 2. Habeas Corpus — Void Sentence. Habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy when a sentence to imprisonment is wholly void for lack of authority to sentence to the institution in question.