Ellis v. Maxson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Calhoun. Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Thomas Ellis against Joseph D. Maxson upon a promissory note; the defense to which, was that the plaintiff had agreed among other things, to cancel and surrender- the npte, in consideration that the defendant would sell and convey to the plaintiff a parcel of land in the State of Illinois.
Read the full summary
Error to Calhoun. Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Thomas Ellis against Joseph D. Maxson upon a promissory note; the defense to which, was that the plaintiff had agreed among other things, to cancel and surrender- the npte, in consideration that the defendant would sell and convey to the plaintiff a parcel of land in the State of Illinois. On the trial the defendant offered parol evidence of this contract, to which the plaintiff objected, — that to be valid, it must be in writing. No proof of the laws of Illinois affecting contracts rfor the, sale of. lands was offered. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.
The only error assigned in this cause is based upon the admission of parol proof of a contract for the sale of lands in the State of Illinois, there being no evidence to show what the law of that State required to make land contracts valid.
The evidence was properly admitted. A parol contract to sell lands was good at common law. It is only' made *187void by statute. If we should make auy presumption, iu the absence of evidence, as to the provisions of any foreign laws, it would be that they conform in substance to the general principles of the common law. How universally we could make…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Whitford v. . the Panama Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
3Cited by10 opinions
- Dickey, Tansley & Co. v. Pocomoke City National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
- Wells v. Schuster-Hax National BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1897
- Kling v. FriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Murphy v. CollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Myers v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.