From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Northern Pipe v. Phoenix Sprinkler

Michigan Court of Appeals
Mar 27, 1969
168 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

Docket No. 5,400.

Decided March 27, 1969.

Appeal from Kent, Claude Vander Ploeg, J. Submitted Division 3 March 4, 1969, at Grand Rapids. (Docket No. 5,400.) Decided March 27, 1969.

Complaint by Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc., a Michigan corporation, against Phoenix Sprinkler Heating Company, a Michigan corporation, to recover for concrete pipe and supplies shipped to defendant. Directed verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Goldstein Goldstein, for plaintiff.

Rhoades, McKee Boer, for defendant.

BEFORE: QUINN, P.J., and HOLBROOK and T.M. BURNS, JJ.


Plaintiff filed this action to recover for concrete pipe and supplies shipped to defendant at its request. At the close of plaintiff's proofs, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict of no cause of action. In making this ruling, the trial court found that plaintiff's proofs, taken most favorably to plaintiff, did not establish a contract, express or implied, between the parties. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff's theory of liability is implied contract. In order to establish it, plaintiff had to prove that the person with whom it dealt was the agent of defendant or to prove facts from which such agency could be inferred. The record, and this includes the separate record, fails to establish the required agency and fails to establish facts from which the agency could be inferred.

Affirmed with costs to defendant.


Summaries of

Northern Pipe v. Phoenix Sprinkler

Michigan Court of Appeals
Mar 27, 1969
168 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

Northern Pipe v. Phoenix Sprinkler

Case Details

Full title:NORTHERN CONCRETE PIPE, INC., v. PHOENIX SPRINKLER HEATING COMPANY

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 27, 1969

Citations

168 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
168 N.W.2d 446

Citing Cases

Hart v. Comerica Bank

Moreover, the party asserting that the agency exists has the burden of proof on the issue. See, e.g., Whitlow…