| Mich. | Jan 18, 1876
We think there is no material distinction between this case and Wells v. Martin, 32 Mich., 478" court="Mich." date_filed="1875-10-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wells-v-martin-7928111?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7928111">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.