Peppler v. Ratz
Decision Date | 10 January 1878 |
Citation | 38 Mich. 96 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | George Peppler v. George Ratz |
Submitted January 10, 1878
Affirmed with costs.
Patterson & Palmer for plaintiff in error.
Burch, Beardsley & Judkins for defendant in error.
Error to Osceola.
The court below found that the plaintiff could not recover under his declaration, and the plaintiff brought error. Affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKindley v. Citizens State Bank of Edgeley
... ... the only principal, the agent alone may sue." 2 Mechem, ... Agency, § 2027; Hamburg-Bremen F. Ins. Co. v ... Lewis, 4 App. D. C. 66; Peppler v. Ratz, 38 ... Mich. 96; King v. Mackellar, 94 N.Y. 317; ... Parsons v. Phelan, 134 Mass. 109; Thornton v ... Stevenson, Tex. Civ. App. , ... ...
-
'What Do You Mean That I Can't Foreclose My Mortgage And Sue The Guarantor At The Same Time? Since When?'
...at once and to forbid a double recovery on the debt. See, e.g., Lee v. Clary, 38 Mich. 223, 227 (1878); Larzelere v. Starkweather, 38 Mich. 96 In 1970, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Leslie, 421 F.2d 763 (6th Cir. 1970) held that this statutory one-action rule did no......