Turner v. McCarty
| Decision Date | 12 January 1871 |
| Citation | 22 Mich. 265 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John A. Turner v. Thomas McCarty |
Heard January 11, 1871
Error to Kent circuit.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace into the circuit court for the county of Kent, wherein Thomas McCarty was plaintiff and John A. Turner defendant. The plaintiff declared for work and labor performed by him for the contractor for street paving in the city of Grand Rapids. The defendant was the assignee of the original contractor with the city, and by the terms of the assignment to him he had agreed with his assignor to pay all sums of money due to persons for such labor as had been performed by the plaintiff. The cause was tried by the circuit judge without a jury, who found for the plaintiff, and the judgment entered thereon comes into this court by writ of error.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.
J. W. Ransom, for plaintiff in error.
Hoyt & Gray, for defendant in error.
Turner, having become assignee of a grading contract, and the former contractor having become liable to several persons whom he had employed in various capacities to work for him, executed, on the same paper which contained the assignment to him, the following article:
Suit was brought by one of these laborers against Turner, and the defense, as presented by the exceptions, rested on the want of privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant.
The case falls directly within the principle of Pipp v. Reynolds, decided at the last April term. There was no contract relation between the parties to this suit. Turner was only bound to his assignor. The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People's Sav. Bank v. Geistert
...the reason there was no privity of contract between the assignee of the vendee and the vendors. Pipp v. Reynolds, 20 Mich. 88;Turner v. McCarty, 22 Mich. 265;Halsted v. Francis, 31 Mich. 113;Osborn v. Osborn, 36 Mich. 48;Hicks v. McGarry, 38 Mich. 667;Hunt v. Strew, 39 Mich. 368;Wood v. Tru......
-
McCurdy v. Van Os
...such an obligation. The reasons for this are peculiar to equity. * * * ‘But we have held in Pipp v. Reynolds, 20 Mich. 88, and Turner v. McCarty, 22 Mich. 265, that no action at law will lie by a third person against a promisor who has promised to pay an obligation from a debtor of such per......
-
Woods v. Ayres
...582, 597, 598; Exchange Bank of St. Louis v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37; Mellen v. Whipple, 1 Gray 317; Pipp v. Reynolds, 20 Mich. 88; Turner v. McCarty, 22 Mich. 265; Ashley Dixon, 48 N.Y. 430; Merrill v. Green, 55 N.Y. 270; Simson v. Brown, 68 N.Y. 355; Strong v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 289; Ban......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Davenport
...except a party to the contract, Litchfield v. Garratt 10 Mich. 426; Pipp v. Reynolds 20 Mich. 92; Mellen v. Whipple 1 Gray 322; Turner v. McCarty 22 Mich. 265; where money on an insurance policy is made payable to a mortgagee of property insured, he cannot sue for it, but the action must be......