Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon Railroad Company v. Langton
| Decision Date | 15 June 1875 |
| Citation | 32 Mich. 251 |
| Parties | The Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon Railroad Company v. George N. Langton and another |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Heard June 10, 1875
Error to Marquette Circuit.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs.
Ball & Black and W. D. Williams, for plaintiff in error, were stopped by the court.
Adams & Sutherland, for defendants in error.
Defendants in error sued plaintiffs in error for damages for not safely carrying and delivering certain hay fro Marquette to Negaunee. The hay was found to be wet and damaged, and a portion was not carried at all, but left at Marquette. The carriage was by the Marquette and Ontonagon Railroad Company which afterwards became consolidated with another company into the corporation which is a party to this suit.
The declaration averred nothing concerning the old company, but charged the transaction as having been with the present corporation. This was claimed on the trial to have been a variance, but the court below held otherwise. In this there was error. Such an allegation could only be proper where the same corporation continues under a new name. But while our laws subject consolidated companies to the obligations of their constituents, the consolidation creates a new and distinct corporation, and any declaration against this for an old cause of action should show against what company it arose, and aver such facts as will subject the new company to be sued upon it. The ruling to the contrary was erroneous.
The principal controversy on the trial arose concerning the condition of the hay when received by the railroad company, and the care or negligence of the company in handling it. If the hay was in dry and good condition when so received, the responsibility for damage would have been very different from that arising under different circumstances. The first thing devolving on plaintiffs below was proof of the condition of the hay when taken into control of the railroad at Marquette.
Instead of attempting any such proofs, the plaintiffs below confined themselves to testimony of its condition when shipped at Sheboygan in Wisconsin, where it was loaded on a vessel, partly below and partly on deck. The idea seemed to be that, having shown an original shipment in good order at Sheboygan, they cast upon defendants the burden of showing that the hay was damaged on the voyage. And after showing this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Salimone
...about by him. People v. Liphardt, 105 Mich. 80, 62 N. W. 1022;Bulen v. Granger, 58 Mich. 274, 25 N. W. 188;Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon R. R. Co. v. Langton, 32 Mich. 251. The rule is thus stated in Detroit & Milwaukee R. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99: ‘When a party places a witne......
-
Kirk v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Co.
... ... LEHIGH VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY et al., Appellants Court of Appeals of Missouri, ... Lynx v. King, 12 Mo. 272; Davis v. Railroad, 89 ... Mo. 340; Gillespie v. Railroad, 6 ... 526; Railway v ... Langton, 32 Mich. 251. (3) The plaintiff has failed to ... ...
-
Langhorne v. Richmond City Ry.Co. 1
...Co. v. Jones, 29 Ind. 465; Agricultural College v. Baxter's Estate, 42 Vt. 99; Boardman v. Railway Co., 84 N. Y. 157; Railroad Co. v. Langton, 32 Mich. 251. In the case at bar the declaration joins the consolidated company after reciting all the facts showing which company the cause of acti......
-
Marq., H. &; O. R. v. Kirkwood
...we think that the ruling was also wrong. The case comes directly within the principle laid down by this court in M., H. & O.R. v. Langdon, 32 Mich. 251, where it was sought to hold these same parties [7 N.W. 210]responsible for delivering hay in a damaged condition, by showing that it was i......