Sunlin v. Skutt

• Decision Date: 12 May 1903
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SUNLIN v. SKUTT.

94 N.W. 733

133 Mich. 208

SUNLIN v. SKUTT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 12, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Alfred Wolcott, Judge.

Action by Louis F. Sunlin against Henry Skutt. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

This case originated in justice court, was appealed to the circuit court, and there tried without a jury. It is an action of trespass to personal property. The written findings are as follows:

'(1) In the spring of 1900 plaintiff was the owner of a steam pump, which was at that time situated in his stone quarry at No. 500 N. Front street, in the city of Grand Rapids that he left the city in the month of April, 1900, and did not return until the month of May, 1901; and that the plaintiff operated his stone quarry at 500 N. Front street in the year 1895, and in the year 1898 it was operated by one Daniel Davis. (2) And I further find that in September 1900, Eaton & Williams were running a stone quarry in Grand river, in the city of Grand Rapids, on property belonging to the Comstock estate, operating their pump and drills by hand; that the said Daniel Davis, who was working for them drawing stone, told them that he owned a steam pump which they could use; that Eaton & Williams accompanied Mr. Davis to what afterwards proved to be Mr. Sunlin's quarry and removed the pump to the said quarry of Eaton & Williams, where it was set up and used by them about a week in operating their quarry, when Eaton & Williams sold out their interest in the quarry to the defendant, Henry Skutt, who entered into an agreement with said Daniel Davis to operate said quarry, said Davis to furnish his own labor, together with his team, wagon, and a steam pump, as against the labor of said Skutt, together with his team, wagon and steam drill. (3) Said quarry was operated by said Skutt and Davis under said agreement (barring times when it was shut down on account of storms and when the dam was out) up to January 3, 1901, a total of 88 days, when the quarry was closed up, and Skutt bought out the interest of Davis in the stone then on the bank of the river, and Skutt took away the drill, and the steam pump was taken down at the direction of Mr. Davis, and left at the edge of the quarry by the bank of the river. (4) I further find that the defendant, Henry Skutt, never knew the pump was the property of the plaintiff, Sunlin, until the spring of 1901, after it had been returned to Mr. Sunlin by Mr. Davis, but believed the same was the property of Mr. Davis. (5) I further find that in 1901, before this suit was brought, the plaintiff accepted $40 of Mr. Davis for the use of said pump. (6) I further find that defendant Skutt never had any knowledge of, concurred in, or ratified the taking of plaintiff's pump by said Daniel Davis, and never received the benefit of said taking, it being the duty of said Daivs, under the agreement by which the quarry was being operated, to furnish his own labor, a team, wagon, and steam pump, as against the labor of Skutt, his team, wagon, and steam drill.

'Conclusion of law: The pump having been taken by said Daniel Davis without the knowledge, consent, or concurrence of said defendant, it follows, as a matter of law, that the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff in the action of trespass.'

C. H. Gleason (Arthur Lowell, of counsel), for appellant.

Smedley & Corwin,...