Court Opinion

ID: 9726800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:09:15.73504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:30.970976
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). I agree with majority conclusion that plaintiff could not recover against Mr. Groh’s administrator on his firmly declared and presented theory that the relationship of the parties was that of employer and employee and then, in this garnishment action, repudiate such theory in favor of that which would have denied recovery in the principal suit.
I disagree, however, with the holding of my Brothers that the special question (quoted in the ma*68jority opinion) was proper for submission to the jury in the principal case. Like the questions Mr. Justice Cooley and his colleagues rejected in Banner Tobacco Co. v. Jenison, 48 Mich 459, and Loomis v. Rogers Township Board, 53 Mich 135, this question presented an issue of law rather than of fact. On that account the jury’s affirmative answer thereto was altogether nugatory.
On above ground I concur in affirmance.
Kavanagh, J., concurred with Black, J.
Souris, J., did not sit.