Danaher v. Garlock
Patrick M. Danaher v. William Garlock
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam :
We think there is no material distinction between this case and Wells v. Martin, 32 Mich., 478 , as to the proof introduced to show liability.
. We discover no evidence in the record tending to show an original undertaking by Danaher, or any act of ratification of any arrangement which Fahy & Dye may have made, and the bill of exceptions states that the substance of all the testimony given is set out; and the judge, after refer *296 ring in his charge to the evidence supposed to bear on the point, stated that it was substantially the testimony produced by both parties.
The judgment should be set aside, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.