Case ID: wis_67/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cassoday, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Payne, Appellant, vs. Jelleff, Respondent.
    
      November 3
    
      November 23, 1886.
    
    
      Hiring of horses: Joint or several liability.
    
    -Although, the charges for the hire of horses on several occasions were made against two persons jointly, yet if there was in fact no joint liability they may be held severally responsible, each for what was furnished at his request.
    APPEAL from the County Court of Fond du Lac County.
    The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday :
    “ This action was commenced in justice’s court to recover the balance due the plaintiff for the use of livery rigs, etc., alleged to have been hired by the defendant from the plaintiff, amounting to $11.50. The answer was a general denial, and pleaded payment. On the trial before the j ustice and a jury, a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $11.50, and judgment was entered thereon for that amount of damages, and $22.31 costs. From that judgment the defendant appealed to the county court, in which the cause was tried upon the return of the justice, and wholly reversed, and judgment for costs of $44.31 rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. From that judgment the plaintiff appeals.”
    For the appellant there was a brief by Gerpheide & McKenna, and oral argument by Mr. McKenna.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Duffy dé McCrory, and oral argument by Mr. McOrory.
    
   Cassoday, J.

There seems to have been sufficient evidence before the justice to sustain the verdict. If the evidence showed the plaintiff’s indebtedness a dollar less than the verdict, still it would not have authorized the reversal. The plaintiff’s bill of particulars showed the plaintiff’s charges to have been made against the defendant and one Bannon. It is urged that this made it a claim against the two jointly. There is no pretense that they were partners or .in any way associated in business. The livery was not for. their joint use, but for political purposes. Each had livery rigs from the plaintiff, and the defendant only seems to have been held responsible for what was furnished at his request No joint liability was established. The defendant was properly held liable in the justice’s court.

By the Court.— The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to affirm the judgment of the justice.