Plaintiff claimed damages in the su

Plaintiff claimed damages in the sum of $5,000, and testified that each of his routes had a value of $2,000. The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $4,000. On a former trial by jury, a verdict of $5,000 was rendered and judgment entered thereon. Subsequently a new trial was granted. On this, the second trial, decision on a motion for directed verdict having been reserved, the trial judge entered a judgment for no cause of action.In a written opinion the court observed that Morgan v. Andrews, 107 Mich. 33, 64 N.W. 869, is authority for *281 the proposition that an action for damages lies against one who is not a party to a contract but who wrongfully induces a breach or termination thereof, and stated that the acts of defendants, ‘In order to cause liability, must have been over and above and other than mere refusal to accept milk hauled by the plaintiffs.’ The court also observed that in Morgan v. Andrews, ‘the only Michigan case on the subject, the act there rendered (which created) liability was the malicious falsehood and deceit of the defendant in inducing the purchaser to reject the machine which he would otherwise have accepted.’

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

原告要求賠償損失$ 5,000的總和，並作證說，他的每一個路線有$ 2,000的價值。陪審團在4000 $的總和返回的判決。在由陪審團審理前，$ 5,000的裁決被渲染和判斷進入上。隨後，新的試驗獲得了批准。對此，二審對一審判決定向運動的決定已被保留，主審法官進入了一個判斷為沒有理由的行動。
在一份書面意見，法院認為，摩根訴安德魯斯，107密歇根州33，64 NW 869，是* 281命題當局將損失謊言對一個人的行為誰不是合同當事人，但誰不正當誘導違反或終止，以及它們的說，作用被告，“為了原因責任，一定已經結束，上述和其它比單純拒絕接受牛奶拖拉由原告”。法院還指出，摩根訴安德魯斯，“關於這個問題的唯一密歇根情況下，該行為有渲染（其創建的）責任是惡意的謊言和被告的欺騙誘導買方拒絕機器，否則他將接受“。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

Zhongpoor a co-signature
Please sign

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

原告要求賠償5000美元，並證明其每條路線價值2000美元。陪審團作出了總額為4000美元的裁决。在前一次陪審團審判中，作出了5000美元的裁决，並就此作出判决。隨後又準予了一項新的審判。關於這一點，二審時，對直接判决動議的决定已被保留，審判法官作出了無訴判决。
法院在一份書面意見書中指出，Morgan訴Andrews案，107 Mich.33，64 N.W.869，是*281的權威，主張損害賠償訴訟針對的不是契约一方，但錯誤地導致違約或終止合同的人，並指出被告的行為“為了引起責任，法院還注意到，在摩根訴安德魯斯一案中，這是密歇根州唯一一宗關於這一問題的案件，由此產生責任的行為是被告在誘使買方拒絕他本應接受的機器時的惡意虛假和欺騙