Dayton v. Williams
Michigan Supreme Court
Case reserved from Oakland Circuit Court. This was an action of assumpsit, founded upon the defendant’s guaranty of the performance, by one Tuel, of his contract to deliver to the plaintiff a specified number of sheep, at a place in Buffalo.
Read the full summary
Case reserved from Oakland Circuit Court. This was an action of assumpsit, founded upon the defendant’s guaranty of the performance, by one Tuel, of his contract to deliver to the plaintiff a specified number of sheep, at a place in Buffalo. The cause having been tried, and a verdict found for tbe plaintiff, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment for the reasons:— 1. That the declaration did not aver that the defendant’s guaranty was in writing. 2. Nor that the guaranty was made with the formalities required by the statute of frauds. 3. That tbe averment of notice to the defendants, of…
1Opinion of the CourtGoodwin, J.
The first reason urged for arresting judgment in this case, assumes that, as the statute relating to fraudulent conveyances and contracts in respect to goods, chattels, and things in action, requires every special promise to answer for the debt or default of another, to be in writing, *32(R. S. 1838, p. 330, <§,2,) therefore it is necessary that the declaration should aver it to have been so. This, however, is not necessary. The rule is, that where a thing is originally authorized by statute which could not be done at common law, then, in pleading, every thing must be averred, which the statute…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Harris Photographic Supply Co. v. FisherMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Kroll v. Diamond Match Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1895