Murphy v. Craig

• Citation: 42 N.W. 1097,76 Mich. 155
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 11 July 1889
• Parties: MURPHY v. CRAIG.

42 N.W. 1097

76 Mich. 155

MURPHY v. CRAIG.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 11, 1889

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; BREVOORT, Judge.

Thomas Murphy sued Thomas Craig in assumpsit for damages for breach of contract. The court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

CHAMPLIN J.

In 1884, Murphy and Craig made a joint purchaser of two boilers and other property. The property was to be sold, and the proceeds divided equally between them. Soon after the purchase one of the boilers was sold, and they received therefor another boiler, some cash, and a note. The cash and note were properly and satisfactorily divided in a settlement had between the parties a short time after they had disposed of the boiler. Later on defendant Craig sold the other of the boilers originally purchased to the Algonac Salt Company for $1,250 in the capital stock of the company. The boiler was delivered by Craig, and the stock issued to him. The sale was made without the knowledge of plaintiff Murphy, and after he ascertained the fact he requested Craig to deliver to him one-half of the stock, being the proceeds of such sale, which Craig absolutely refused to do. They remained the joint owners of the boiler received on the sale of the first boiler, and some other articles of personal property purchased at the time they purchased the two boilers. This action was brought in assumpsit to recover the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of defendant's refusal to divide the proceeds received by him on the sale of the boiler to the Algonac Salt Company. The declaration contains two special and the common counts. On the trial the sale of the boiler in question by Craig and his receipt of the stock was fully proven. Plaintiff also testified to a statement or admission of defendant that the stock so received by him was worth 100 cents on the dollar and that he had received $1,250 in stock. There was other testimony tending to show the value of the stock, and that it was worth its par value. At the close of the testimony the counsel for plaintiff requested the court to instruct the jury to give a verdict for the plaintiff for the value of one-half of the stock, at $25 a share. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant upon the grounds (1) that it appeared from the testimony that there was a partnership existing between the parties which cannot be settled in a...