Case Name: John Hatzenbuhler v. Thomas Lewis
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1883-10-24
Citations: 51 Mich. 585
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Hatzenbuhler v. Thomas Lewis.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 585–587

Head Matter:
John Hatzenbuhler v. Thomas Lewis.
Error — Action by individual for debt to firm.
A judgment cannot be reversed upon an-instruction to tbe jury wbicli in itself was correct, whether the reason" for it did or did not involve an opinion on facts.
A declaration on the common counts alone is insufficient in an action by an individual for the price of goods purporting to be sold by a firm in which he was a partner, if there is no showing of any assignment of the claim by the firm to the plaintiff, or of any notice to defendant of the firm’s dissolution.
The issue made before a justice cannot be substantially changed in the circuit court on appeal.
Error to "Wayne. (Jennison, J.)
Oct. 11.
Oct. 24.
Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
George S. Hosmer for appellant.
A'parol assignment of an account is good: Draper v. Fletcher 26 Micb. 154; Hooker■ v. Eagle .Bank 30 N. Y. 83; tbe common counts are sufficient to sustain a suit in justice’s court on an assigned account: Kelly v. Waters 31 Micb. 404; Snell v. Gregory 37 Mich. 500; and pleadings in justices’ courts are to be liberally construed: Wilcox v. Tol. <& A. A. R. R. Go. 43 Micb. 584.
Henry F. Cfkipman for appellee.

Opinion:
Campbell, J.
Plaintiff sued defendant on the common counts, and recovered before a justice. Defendant appealed. On the trial at the circuit plaintiff undertook to recover for goods sold defendant by a firm of Robinson & Hatzenbuhler. Plaintiff's claim was that the firm bad become dissolved, and that it was understood be was to have all the assets. No assignment was ever made, and it does not appear that any entries were made, or anything done beyond the arrangement or understanding in question. No notice was shown of any dissolution as given to defendant, who produced a receipt in full from Robinson, which was/ given in settling up some old dealings about which there was some question how far they entered into firm dealings-The court below directed a verdict for defendant, giving as-a reason that no such dissolution was shown as would authorize the suit.
JECosmer, for the motion,
cited Kelly v. Waters 31 Mich. 404; Gregory v. Snell 31 Mich. 500; Sojoer v. Mills 50' Mich. 15, and Wiloox v. Railroad Go. 43 Mich. 584.
We cannot reverse the judgment if this direction was-right, whether the precise reason did or did not involve an opinion on facts. We do not feel quite sure that the conclusion of the judge was not warranted as applicable to the-case as it stood. But there can be no doubt of the insufficiency of the declaration in regard to the assignment, and this may have caused some difficulty. The plaintiff declared simply'on the common counts, the effect of which, on such a cause of action as the peculiar one relied on upon the trial, was to assert that the goods were sold and delivered by plaintiff, and not by the firm. There is no reference to any assignment in any paper returned by the justice. The evidence, therefore, did not tend to prove the cause declared on, and the verdict could not have been sustained on error if given for plaintiff and properly complained of.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.