Hinman v. Littell
| Decision Date | 17 October 1871 |
| Citation | 23 Mich. 484 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alfred B. Hinman and Another v. James Littell |
Heard October 10, 1871
Error to Wayne circuit.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to defendant in error of both courts.
Walker & Kent, for plaintiffs in error.
Dickinson & Dickinson, for defendant in error.
Christiancy J.:
Defendant in error brought an action of assumpsit in the court below, against the plaintiffs in error and one William A Wiggins, for a bill of goods which he claimed to have sold to them as partners, doing business under the name and style of "Smith & Hinman."
The main question in the case, as it comes before us, is, whether there was any evidence tending to show that Smith & Hinman (two of the defendants claimed to be members of the firm) had held themselves out as partners with Wiggins (the other defendant).
The court refused to charge that there was no such evidence; and some of the charges given were based upon the assumption that the jury might find that they had held themselves out as such partners.
Much of the evidence, and especially the letters and acceptance introduced by the plaintiff below, tended rather to show that Smith & Hinman were the only partners and as such liable to the plaintiff, and that Wiggins was only their agent. But the testimony of Wiggins, while its direct tendency was to establish a partnership in fact between the three defendants, tended also (and none the less on this account) to show that he was authorized by Smith & Hinman to act as a partner in the business with them, and to hold them out to the plaintiff and others as partners with him in that firm; and that he did, as thus authorized, represent and hold them out to the plaintiff (below) as such before the latter sent forward to the firm the goods, for the price of which the action was brought; and that the plaintiff, therefore, had a right to rely upon the truth of such representations in making the sale. If, as this evidence of Wiggins tended to show, he was authorized thus to represent and hold them out, this, when he did so, was as much holding themselves out as such partners as if the same representations had been made by them in person. There was, therefore, evidence to be left to the jury upon this point.
The charge of the court, in answer to the fourth request of the plaintiff, is also assigned for error. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hobbs v. Virginia Nat. Bank
...was also admissible because he had in fact authorized the statements to be made and the reputation to be created. In the case of Hinman Littell, 23 Mich. 484, Littell sued the defendants, Wiggins, Smith and Hinman, as partners, for the price of goods sold. The court said: "The main question......
-
Rainwater v. Childress
...it must appear that the alleged act of holding out was done by him or with his assent. 30 Cyc. 393; 67 Ga. 541; 6 J. J. Marsh, 609; 23 Mich. 484; 28 Mo. 94; 11 L. R. A. 34 N.Y.S. 328; 40 Am. Rep. 465. One who relies on the acts or conduct of another as holding himself out as a member of a p......
-
Hahlo v. Mayer
...the law to the jury under the facts disclosed in the case. Smith v. Hill, 45 Vt. 90; Edmunds v. Bushell, L. R. 1 Q. B. 97; Hinman v. Littell, 23 Mich. 484; on Part. 54, 181; Daniel on Neg. Inst., sec. 352; Bates on Part., sec. 90; Wheeler v. McEldowney, 60 Ill. 358; Story on Part., secs. 64......
-
Hobbs v. Va. Nat. Bank Of Petersburg
...was also admissible because he had in fact authorized the statements to be made and the reputation to be created. In the case of Hinman v. Littell, 23 Mich. 484, Littell sued the defendants, Wiggins, Smith, and Hinmao, as partners, for the price of goods sold. The court said: "The main ques......