City of Detroit v. Houghton
| Decision Date | 13 January 1880 |
| Citation | 4 N.W. 171,42 Mich. 459 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF DETROIT v. WILLIAM HOUGHTON and others. |
Where, in an action on a joint obligation against several, the evidence showed no right to recover against one, held, a good defence as to all.
Error to superior court of Detroit.
F.A. Baker, City Counselor, for plaintiff in error.
Hawley & Firnane and Edward Minock, for defendants in error.
The city brought a joint action of debt against John Taylor, Jr., John Taylor, Catharine Dardis, and William Houghton, and counted on an official bond given by John Taylor, Jr., as ward collector, and executed by the other defendants as his sureties.
Mrs. Dardis pleaded the general issue and denied upon oath the execution of the bond. Houghton also pleaded the general issue and added a notice of defence, depending on the validity of the objection taken by Mrs. Dardis.
The only evidence offered was on the part of the city, and from that it appeared conclusively that Mrs. Dardis never executed the bond or became a party to it. As against her, therefore, the instrument was not admissible, and there was nothing for the jury, and the effect bore upon the whole case.
The result, as respected Mrs. Dardis, was decisive against the city in this action as to all the defendants. The suit being upon contract against several, and being carried through on that basis, the city was bound to prove a joint liability on the part of all. Winslow v. Herrick, 9 Mich. 380; Ballou v. Hill, 23 Mich. 60; Mace v. Page, 33 Mich. 38; Livingston's Ex'rs v. Tremper, 11 Johns. 101; Sheriff et al. v. Wilks, 1 E. 48; Buller's N.P. 129; 2 Evans' Poth. 57; 1 Chitty P. (16th Am.Ed.) 51 and 52, and notes; Anderson v. Robinson, 38 Mich. 407.
But, as we have seen, instead of making such proof the city itself negatived liability on the part of Mrs. Dardis. The inevitable consequence was that the other defendants became entitled to a verdict.
Under these circumstances the questions suggested by the learned counsel for the city appear to be entirely immaterial.
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow
... ... value of which was $500,000) of the Old Dominion Copper ... Company of Baltimore City, called the 'Baltimore ... Company,' and the title to certain othr neighboring ... mining ... McLelland v. Ridgeway, 12 Ala. 482; State Bank ... v. Robinson, 13 Ark. 214-221; Detroit v ... Houghton, 42 Mich. 459, 460, 4 N.W. 171, 287. It is ... difficult to conceive of persons ... ...
-
Peterson v. Armstrong
... ... 303; Gould v. Bk ... Co., 126 Mass. 25; Verhein v. Schultz, 91 U.S ... 526; Detroit v. Houghton, 57 Mo. 326; 42 Mich. 459; ... 4 N.W. 171, 287; Rogers v. Higgins, 57 Ill. 244 ... the Supreme Court so as to conform to the weight of evidence ... Salt Lake City v. Colledge, 13 Utah 522; ... Wickliffe v. Owings, 17 How. 47-53; Elizabeth v. Am ... N ... ...
-
Beekman v. Sylvester
... ... 60; Larkin v ... Butterfield, 29 Mich. 254; Anderson v. White, ... 39 Mich. 130; Detroit v. Houghton, 42 Mich. 459, 4 ... N.W. 171, 287; Munn v. Haynes, 46 Mich. [109 Mich ... 186] 140, ... ...
-
Brakefield v. Lucas
... ... Railroad Co., 91 U.S. 526, 23 L.Ed. 416; Verhein v ... Schultz, 57 Mo. 326; City of Detroit v ... Houghton, 42 Mich. 459, 4 N.W. 171, 287; Rogers v ... Higgins, 57 Ill. 244 ... ...