Miner v. O'Harrow
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The •facts are stated in the opinion. Plaintiff sought to recover for the consideration money due upon an alleged parol contract of sale of an alleged equitable interest in lands, a contract notdeclared upon, and void by statute, liad it ever existed : How.
Read the full summary
Error to Muskegon. (Russell, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The •facts are stated in the opinion. Plaintiff sought to recover for the consideration money due upon an alleged parol contract of sale of an alleged equitable interest in lands, a contract notdeclared upon, and void by statute, liad it ever existed : How. Stat. § 6181. The admission of parol evidence to establish a parol contract of sale of an interest in land, was erroneous: Hayes v. Livingston, 34 Mich. 384, and cases cited; Rawdon v. Dodge, 40 Mich. 697; Nims v. Sherman, 43 Mich. 45 ; Sutton v. Rowley, 44 Mich. 112;…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
Plaintiff sued defendant for the price
of a house and lot sold, and not paid for, except in part. The transaction was had more than six years before suit brought; but, if valid, was kept alive by payments within that time. Some controversy, and apparently the most obstinate, arose out of the claim that such a cause of action could not arise under the common counts. But it is familiar doctrine that an action will lie, under the common counts,.for a sum agreed upon as due, if based on lawful consideration. It is also settled that, where all the facts have been examined, and there is no reason to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holland v. HoytMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by3 opinions
- Baldock v. AtwoodOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Pierson v. SpauldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Hinckley v. McLaughlinMichigan Supreme Court · 1912