Case Name: Pip et al. vs. Reynolds and Hess
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1870-04
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. l
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pip et al. vs. Reynolds and Hess.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: l–li

Head Matter:
Pip et al. vs. Reynolds and Hess.
A. sues B. Declaration alleges tbatB. promised, for a consideration to labor for A., which C had before agreed to do, but does not state to whom B. .made the promise. Held, The declaration doe} not allege a cause of action against B.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Graves, J.
In this case the Court below instructed the jury that the special counts in the declaration did not allege a cause of action, and there was judgment for defendants.
The declaration sets forth that the defendants promised — for a certain consideration from one Ecklin — to perform a job of painting for plaintiffs, which Ecklin had before agreed to do for them, but it is not stated to whom the defendants made this promise. It is, however, alleged that " by means of the premises, promises and undertakings, the defendants became liable," &c.
Held, That the passage in the declaration which alleges the liability of the defendants, has no effect as a statement of a ground of action; that it is only a conclusion of law and not an allegation of fact, and unless the facts should appear to warrant this conclusion, the declaration could receive no aid from it.
Held further, That the declaration sets forth no cause of action against the defendants, since the contract set up appears to have been made between Ecklin and the defendants; and the plaintiffs are not shown to have been connected with the consideration or promise, or to have been privy to the transaction; that the fact that the defendants agreed to perform a job for Ecklin, which the latter had agreed to perform for the plaintiffs, does not invest the plaintiffs with the right to recover of the defendants in special assumpsit, on an agreement to which they were strangers, any damages caused by the failure to perform that agreement.
Judgment below affirmed with costs.