Prichard v. Sharp

• Citation: 51 Mich. 432,16 N.W. 798
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 10 October 1883
• Parties: PRICHARD v. SHARP.

16 N.W. 798

51 Mich. 432

PRICHARD v. SHARP.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 10, 1883

A person arrested on capias could not get bail, and, on giving the plaintiff secured notes, the latter consented to his discharge. The arrest was caused in good faith for an injury which plaintiff supposed had been done by defendant, and the notes were taken in satisfaction of the injury, though they did not fully compensate it. Held, that a bill would not lie for the cancellation of the securities on the ground that they had been obtained by duress.

Courts cannot disturb a compromise between parties, unless on satisfactory evidence of mistake, fraud, or unconscionable advantage.

Appeal from Missaukee.

Silas S. Fallass, for defendant.

GRAVES, C.J.

The defendant hired complainant to plow a small piece of ground on his premises, and distant a few rods from his house and barn. There were two or three log heaps in the field. The defendant left home in the forenoon of Tuesday, being the eighteenth of August, 1879, and continued absent until the twenty-sixth. Shortly after he left, and on the same day, the complainant repaired to defendant's place to perform the plowing. He set fire to one of the log heaps, and plowed a few furrows, and then quit and went away. When the defendant returned he found that his barn, together with the contents had been destroyed by fire during his absence, and there were signs that the fire had passed to the barn from the log heap. He adopted the opinion that the firing of the log heap was the cause of the loss and that the act was culpable negligence for which the complainant was responsible. The complainant claimed that the barn did not burn during his stay at the premises, and that he knew nothing of it; and further, that the fire which destroyed the barn did not proceed from the log heap. The defendant sued him for the damage by capias, and obtained an order for bail in the sum of $1,000. The writ was made returnable April 13, 1880, and complainant was arrested on it about March 5th, and, failing to give bail, was committed. The term of court next after the return-day was not to occur until October, and complainant, not succeeding in finding bail, was anxious to secure his enlargement in some other way, and avoid being confined until fall. He remained in custody until the return-day, and then entered into an agreement with the defendant to give him his note secured by mortgage, for $325.

The complainant claims that the giving of the securities was simply to obtain his enlargement, and for no other purpose but the defendant swears, and he is corroborated, that the transaction was a settlement and compromise of the action and a release of complainant from...