Norberg v. Heineman

• Decision Date: 20 January 1886
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: NORBERG v. HEINEMAN and others.

26 N.W. 481

59 Mich. 210

NORBERG v. HEINEMAN and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 20, 1886

Error to Wayne,

Griffin & Warner, for plaintiff.

Dickinson Thurber & Hosmer, for defendants and appellants.

MORSE J.

Plaintiff sued the defendants jointly under the provisions of section 4110, How.St., to recover for his personal labor rendered for the Erie Iron Company, the other defendants being stockholders of said company. At the time suit was commenced the mine, works, and business office of the iron company were located in the county of Marquette, and not in the county of Wayne, where the suit was brought. The suit was pleaded in justice's court, and judgment therein rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount of his claim. The defendant appeared in such suit by James H. McDonald, as its attorney. Defendants Heineman and the Butzels appealed to the circuit court, where judgment was again obtained by plaintiff. Upon the trial in the circuit court the defendants Heineman and Butzels demanded the authority of Mr. McDonald to appear for the Erie Iron Company, to which demand the court replied, "I do not think it necessary;" to which ruling exception was taken. Afterwards, however, the plaintiff called McDonald as a witness, and he testified that he was an attorney at law residing in Detroit, and represented the iron company, and upon cross-examination he produced the following authority, signed by the secretary of the company:

"To James H. McDonald, Attorney at Law, Detroit, Mich.: You are instructed, authorized, and empowered to appear on behalf of the Erie Iron Company in all suits which may be brought in any justice's court in the city of Detroit against said iron company.

"ERIE IRON COMPANY.

"Per W.A. WIGHT, Secretary."

"Dated August 16, 1884."

There does not seem to have been any question made in the justice court as to his right or authority to represent the iron company there.

Mr. McDonald, being an attorney of the circuit court, until a showing to the contrary was made, must, we think, be presumed to have authority to appear for the company. We know of no rule, statute, or authority requiring attorneys in the circuit court, upon demand of the opposite party, to affirmatively establish their power to act for the clients in whose behalf they have entered appearance in due form. We also think the authority shown by him sufficient to authorize his appearance in justice court, and to follow the cause upon appeal into the circuit. Neither could there be any valid objection under the proofs to the appearance of Mr. Warner as attorney for the plaintiff, who was not present, in the circuit court. The authority of attorneys in good standing to appear in the circuit courts is presumably valid, and no showing was made affecting Mr. Warner's right to represent the plaintiff; but, on the contrary, evidence was given tending to show his authority to prosecute plaintiff's claim.

It is also urged that this action could not be maintained in Wayne county under the statute, inasmuch as the mine and business office of the defendant corporation was in Marquette county. This question is not raised by the corporation itself, but by the other defendants, who alone appeal to this court. It must be presumed that the Erie Iron Company undertook to waive this provision...