Skiba v. Gustin
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Alpena; Emerick, J. Assumpsit by John Skiba against Henry K. Gustin on the common counts and on a special count for breach of a land contract. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.
Read the full summary
Error to Alpena; Emerick, J. Assumpsit by John Skiba against Henry K. Gustin on the common counts and on a special count for breach of a land contract. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error. In a special count in his declaration, plaintiff alleges that defendant contracted to sell and convey to him, and he agreed to buy, for a consideration of $150, a portion of which was paid down, the S. E. | of S. E. £ of section 13, in town 32 N., range 6 E.; that defendant afterwards sold and conveyed the said land to another for a consideration of $300. The common counts are…
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
(after stating the facts). The receipt for money was competent evidence of the date and amount of money paid by plaintiff to defendant. It was competent evidence of a contract to sell and convey the land therein described. It was not evidence of a contract to sell and convey the land described in the declaration, and which plaintiff claims to have bargained for. It follows that the contract for the purchase and sale of that land, if one was made, rested and rests entirely in parol. Considered as a mere receipt for money, it was competent to explain and even to modify the terms of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Scott v. GrowMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
- Jensen v. ShevitzMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Lundberg v. WolbrinkMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
- United States v. Traugott Schmidt & SonsDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1923