Danaher v. Garlock
33 Mich. 295 | Mich. | 1876
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
The judgment should be set aside, with costs, and a new trial ordered.