Grant v. Nat'l Mfr. & Plating Co., 133.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 133.,133. |
| Citation | 243 N.W. 21,258 Mich. 453 |
| Parties | GRANT et al. v. NATIONAL MANUFACTURER & PLATING CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; William B. Brown, Judge.
Suit by George D. Grant and others, doing business as the Grant Brass Works, against the National Manufacturer & Plating Company. From the judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Rowland M. Connor, of Detroit, for appellants.
Douglas, Barbour, Brown & Rogers, of Detroit, for appellee.
Plaintiffs and appellants, describing themselves, both in the original declaration, and also in the writ, and affidavit for the writ of garnishment, as George D. Grant, Walter William Grant, and Charles A. Grant, doing business as Grant Brass Works, a Michigan corporation, brought suit against defendant National Manufacturer & Plating Company. The pleadings do not disclose where plaintiff carried on its business. Defendant filed a plea of general issue, and the garnishment was released by the filing of a bond in accordance with stipulation between plaintiff and principal defendant. At the trial of the case, almost five years later, if was shown that defendant had been adjudicated a bankrupt in 1928, and insufficient was realized from its assets to pay any dividend to general creditors. It further developed that Grant Brass Works was not a corporation, as stated in some of the pleadings previously filed, but that it was a copartnership compose of George D. Grant, Charles A. Grant, and Walter W. Grant. It was admitted that it had never filed a certificate of copartnership, as required by section 9934 C. L. 1929, which prohibits the bringing of any action or proceeding in any of the courts of this state until after full compliance with the provisions of the act. Defendant's attorneys thereupon moved to amend the plea by giving notice that plaintiffs had failed to comply with the act, and therefore could not recover in the present suit. The trial judge granted a continuance in order to enable plaintiffs' counsel to meet the new defense, and, on the adjourned day after granting the motion to amend, rendered a judgment in favor of defendant.
Plaintiffs, in contending that the amendment should not have been permitted, claim that defendant waived its right to amend and to make the objection that the trial court found fatal, because defendant had stipulated to release the garnishment on the filing of the bond, and also on account of defendant's long delay, claimed to be laches, in giving notice of the special defense. The trial judge in his opinion stated that the suit was brought in such form that it was uncertain whether plaintiff was a corporation or not; that, if it was a copartnership, it was not shown where it did business, and it was not incumbent upon defendant to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardaway Auto Owners Ins. Co., Intervenor v. Consolidated Paper Co.
...212; Berston v. Gilbert, 180 Mich. 638, 147 N.W. 496; Randall v. Douglass, 321 Mich. 492, 32 N.W.2d 721; Grant v. National Manufacturer & Plating Co., 258 Mich. 453, 243 N.W. 21; Simonelli v. Cassidy, 336 Mich. 635, 59 N.W.2d Defendant introduced no evidence to justify its failure to amend ......
- Franks v. Woodward, 29.
-
Gratiot Lumber & Coal Co. v. Lubinski
...give the statute of amendments a liberal construction. See Okulich v. Goldman, 239 Mich. 569, 215 N.W. 11. In Grant v. National Mfg. & Plating Co., 258 Mich. 453, 243 N.W. 21, 22, we said: ‘As a rule, the permission to amend rests wholly within the discretion of the trial court, and, unless......
-
Dacon v. Transue
... ... , supra at 641, 59 N.W.2d 28, quoting Grant v. Nat'l. Manufacturer & Plating ... Page 375 ... Co., 258 Mich. 453, 243 N.W. 21 (1932) ... Michigan Central R. Co., 168 Mich. 104, 133 N.W. 956 (1911), which indicated: " 'When a ... ...