Smith v. Canfield
| Decision Date | 13 October 1860 |
| Citation | 8 Mich. 493 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Luther G. Smith v. Edmund Canfield and another |
Submitted on Brief October 9, 1860
Error to Manistee circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs.
Pond & Russell, for plaintiff in error.
There was no appearance for defendants in error.
Manning J.:
The writ of replevin is in the name of E. & J. Canfield, plaintiff. In the affidavit annexed to the writ, John Canfield is described as the plaintiff, and the declaration is in the name of Edmund Canfield and John Canfield. Defendant made a motion to quash the writ and subsequent proceedings, but did not enter his appearance in the cause, or further appear therein after the motion was denied. The writ of replevin was a nullity, as no person was named in it as plaintiff. E. & J. Canfield, the proceedings show, was the name of a partnership. Partners can not sue in the name of the firm.
The judgment is reversed, with costs.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. Furner
...a case where the suit is in a partnership name without naming the individuals composing it, as was that case, and cases like Smith v. Canfield, 8 Mich. 493. In the latter case, however, the court withheld its opinion whether the writ was a nullity in a sense excluding all possibility of mak......
-
Kingman Mills v. Furner
... ... Poffenbarger ... and Lynch, JJ., dissenting in part ... [109 S.E. 601] ... Harvey ... F. Smith, of Clarksburg, for plaintiff in error ... Harvey ... W. Harmer, of Clarksburg, for defendant in error ... partnership name without naming the individuals composing it, ... as was that case, and cases like Smith v. Canfield, ... 8 Mich. 493. In the latter case, however, the court withheld ... its opinion whether the writ was a nullity in a sense ... excluding all ... ...
-
Kalamazoo Trust Co. v. Merrill
...unanimous. 30 Cyc. pp. 561, 567; Mechem's Elements of Partnership, §§ 130, 131, 147, 225; George on Partnership, p. 363; Smith v. Canfield, 8 Mich. 493;Barber v. Smith, 41 Mich. 138, 1 N. W. 992;Learned v. Ayres, 41 Mich. 679, 3 N. W. 178;Davis v. Merrill, 51 Mich. 480, 16 N. W. 864;Carpent......
-
Frank v. Tatum
...18 Ill. 38; Revis v. Lamme, 2 Mo. 168; Seely v. Schenk, 2 N. J. Law, 55; Reid v. McLeod, 20 Ala. 576; Kamm v. Harker, 3 Or. 212; Smith v. Canfield, 8 Mich. 493; Burden v. Cross, 33 Tex. 685. California, Iowa, Ohio, Nebraska, and Alabama, and perhaps other states, have statutes which authori......