Case Name: WRIGHT v. REINELT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1898-12-06
Citations: 118 Mich. 638
Docket Number: 
Parties: WRIGHT v. REINELT.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
WRIGHT v. REINELT.
Justices’ Courts — Misjoinder of Defendants — Abatement — Judgment on Appeal.
A misjoinder of defendants in justice’s court in an action ex contractu is not remedied, iso as to sustain a verdict rendered in the circuit, upon their appeal, against only one of them, by Circuit Court Rule No. 27(c), adopted pursuant to 2 How. Stat. § 6409, making it the duty of the court to provide rules to prevent the abatement of suits for misjoinder; such rule having no application to cases originating in justice’s court.
Error to Sanilac; Beach, J.
Submitted October 19, 1898.
Decided December 6, 1898.
Assumpsit by John L. Wright against John Reinelt And Charles Reinelt for work and labor. From a judg anent for plaintiff against defendant Charles, the latter '¡brings error.
Reversed.
J. S. Orandell and W. H. Burgess, for appellant.
F. S. Viets and F. C. Babcock, for appellee.

Opinion:
Grant, C. J.
Plaintiff brought suit in justice's court, and recovered a verdict against both defendants. Both appealed. In the circuit court, plaintiff recovered verdict against defendant Charles, and the jury found defendant John not liable. The suit was for work and labor, claiming balance on settlement. In the circuit court, defendants pleaded a set-off.
The record contains none of the testimony, and the sole point raised is on the charge of the court. From this it appears that defendant Charles admitted his liability. The sole contention of defendant is that the suit was based apon a joint liability, and that the court erred in not instructing the jury that, if they found there was no joint liability, they must render a verdict for defendants. Cir. •Ct. Rule No. 27(c) was adopted to meet such cases as this which originated in the circuit courts. Bur gin v. Smith, 115 Mich. 239. It has no application to cases originating in justices courts. Anderson v. Robinson, 38 Mich: 407. The instruction should have been given.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
The other Justices concurred.