Toombs v. Stockwell
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Clinton; Stone, J. Assumpsit by Theodore Toombs against A. U. Stock-well upon a guaranty of payment for goods sold. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings qrror.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
A statement of the issue in this case will be found in 127 Mich. 379 (86 N. W. 806). Upon the second trial the defendant was permitted to show by parol testimony that the parties did not understand the term, “to be fully settled for within ten days,” to mean payment, but that the agent of the Ideal Flatiron Company informed Mrs. Servis and Mr. Stockwell that she would pay the money out of what goods she sold, and account for those unsold.
The term “settled,” or “to be settled for,” does not necessarily mean payment. One lexicographer defines “settle” to mean “to adjust differences, claims, or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Toombs v. StockwellMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by5 opinions
- Beall v. Hudson County Water Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1911
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. SheaIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- Michael v. DonohoeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1920
- Land-Air, Inc. v. ParkerArizona Supreme Court · 1967
- Land-Air, Inc. v. ParkerArizona Supreme Court · 1967