Henderson v. Detroit & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 September 1902
• Citation: 131 Mich. 438,91 N.W. 630
• Parties: HENDERSON v. DETROIT & M. RY. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

91 N.W. 630

131 Mich. 438

HENDERSON v. DETROIT & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 17, 1902

Error to circuit court, Alpena county; Frank Emerick.Judge.

Action by Robert Henderson against the Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

Charles R. Henry, for appellant.

Joseph H. Cobb, for appellee.

HOOKER C.J.

The plaintiff and two or three other persons had claims against defendant for injuries to their respective cattle.The plaintiff took assignments from the others, of which the following is a sample of all: 'For a valuable consideration, to me in hand paid by Robert Henderson, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged and confessed, I herein and hereby sell, assign, transfer, and set over to said Robert Henderson all my right, title, and claim for damages against the Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company for injuries done to my cow on the 5th day of May, 1901, and I herein and hereby authorize and empower said Robert Henderson in his name to commence suit and prosecute the same against the Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company for the damages and injuries I sustained on account of the injuries to my said cow.Dated August 13th, 1901.Ed Fitzpatrick.'The evidence shows that no agreement was made as to the compensation to be made for the assignments, except that it was agreed that whatever plaintiff should collect out of these claims should be turned over to the respective assignors.The assignments were admitted under objection, and defendant's counsel urge that it was error to admit them and to permit the jury to consider them.Counsel says in his brief that: 'The only thing I complain of is the methods which these parties have employed in attempting to unite these causes of action.Had the several claimants not united their claims in this unique manner, the defendant would not have been subjected to a trial in the circuit court, as their claims would all have been exclusively within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace; but, having attempted to unite them, they should have advanced in support thereof some substantial and concerted action as between themselves.They should show some agreement of a sufficiently definite character to constitute an assignment, and it should not be permitted to rest in so careless and indifferent condition.It is perfectly evident from the testimony of the plaintiff that the minds of the...