33 Mich. 458 (Mich. 1876), Stevens v. Corbitt

Citation33 Mich. 458
Opinion JudgeMarston, J
Party NameWilliam H. Stevens v. Jeffrey Corbitt. [1]
AttorneyM. C. Palmer and Lemuel Clute, for plaintiff in error, George A. Smith and Blanchard & Bell, for defendant in error.
Case DateApril 11, 1876
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

Page 458

33 Mich. 458 (Mich. 1876)

William H. Stevens

v.

Jeffrey Corbitt. 1

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 11, 1876

Heard January 12, 1876

Error to Montcalm Circuit.

Judgment reversed, and affirmed as to the residue, to recovered his costs in this court.

M. C. Palmer and Lemuel Clute, for plaintiff in error, argued that the declaration averred a promise based on an executed consideration, and that to support a promise grounded on a past consideration it must appear that the consideration moved at the request of the promisor: Comstock v. Smith, 7 Johns. 87; Parker v. Crane, 6 Wend. 647; and a mere voluntary courtesy to the defendant will not support an after-made promise: 1 Smith's L. C., 265-7.

Notwithstanding the words "value received," it was competent to show there was in fact no consideration: Osgood v. Bringolf, 32 Iowa 265; Jerome v. Whitney, 7 Johns. 321; Colbath v. Jones, 28 Mich. 280; People v. Howell, 4 Johns. 226; Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns. 145.

While a promise to pay a railroad company a specified sum of money on condition of its building a certain road in a specified time, may in some cases, on performance of the condition, be clothed with a valid consideration which related back to the promise and thereby became a valid and binding contract, it must be made to appear not only that the offer made by the promise was accepted by performance, but also that the performance was in reliance upon the promise; and the acceptance and performance must be by the promisee.

If the contract be treated as a subscription, it must be shown the road was constructed by the promisee in reliance on the promise: People v. Taylor, 2 Mich. 253; Underwood v. Waldron, 12 Mich. 73; and the declaration should have averred the promise to be to give so much to build the road, and that the offer was accepted, and the road built relying on the offer: Utica, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brinkerhoff, 21 Wend. 141.

George A. Smith and Blanchard & Bell, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Page 459

Marston, J

Plaintiff in error executed and delivered an instrument in writing, of which the following is a copy.

"$ 321 00. Stanton, Mich., July 8, 1872.

"For value received, I promise to pay to the order of H. H. Smith, Esq., three hundred and twenty-one dollars, one year from the time when the railroad proposed to be built on some point on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • 107 Cal. 504, 18374, Berry v. Woodburn
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court of California
    • June 27, 1895
    ...15; 4 Am. St. Rep. 810; Perkins v. Hadsell , 50 Ill. 216; Reese v. Board of Police of Lee County , 49 Miss. 639; Stevens v. Corbitt , 33 Mich. 458; Michigan etc. R. R. v. Bacon , 33 Mich. 466; Swartwout v. Michigan Air Line R. R ., 24 Mich. 390; Wooters v. International etc. R. R. Co ., 54 ......
  • Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. v. Draeger, 011515 MICA, 316194
    • United States
    • Michigan Court of Appeals of Michigan
    • January 15, 2015
    ...or liabilities incurred. Plaintiff on appeal defends the trial court's decision to pierce the corporate veil. [3] See Stevens v Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458, 461 (1876) (a promise to pay a sum certain for a construction project that is both accepted by performance done in reliance on that promise ......
  • 95 N.Y. 181, Todd v. Weber
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 1884
    ...28 Am. Rep. 517; Wolford v. Powers, 85 Ind. 294; 44 Am. Rep. 16; Long v. Battle Creek, 39 Mich. 323; 33 Am. Rep. 384; Stevens v. Corbett, 33 Mich. 461, Shadwell v. Shadwell, 30 L. J. 145; Gunion v. Cromartie, 11 Ired. 174; Alderson v. Madderson, Exch. Div., 29 Week. R. 105; Hammersly v. De ......
  • 30 N.W. 78 (Mich. 1886), Sickels v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 28, 1886
    ...if it directed a verdict at all, have instructed them to find for the defendant. Druse v. Wheeler, 26 Mich. 195; Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458. A.W. Scoville and Spaulding & Barker, for plaintiffs, Sickels and another. The road was built substantially on the old line. If the charge a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • 107 Cal. 504, 18374, Berry v. Woodburn
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court of California
    • June 27, 1895
    ...15; 4 Am. St. Rep. 810; Perkins v. Hadsell , 50 Ill. 216; Reese v. Board of Police of Lee County , 49 Miss. 639; Stevens v. Corbitt , 33 Mich. 458; Michigan etc. R. R. v. Bacon , 33 Mich. 466; Swartwout v. Michigan Air Line R. R ., 24 Mich. 390; Wooters v. International etc. R. R. Co ., 54 ......
  • Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. v. Draeger, 011515 MICA, 316194
    • United States
    • Michigan Court of Appeals of Michigan
    • January 15, 2015
    ...or liabilities incurred. Plaintiff on appeal defends the trial court's decision to pierce the corporate veil. [3] See Stevens v Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458, 461 (1876) (a promise to pay a sum certain for a construction project that is both accepted by performance done in reliance on that promise ......
  • 95 N.Y. 181, Todd v. Weber
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 1884
    ...28 Am. Rep. 517; Wolford v. Powers, 85 Ind. 294; 44 Am. Rep. 16; Long v. Battle Creek, 39 Mich. 323; 33 Am. Rep. 384; Stevens v. Corbett, 33 Mich. 461, Shadwell v. Shadwell, 30 L. J. 145; Gunion v. Cromartie, 11 Ired. 174; Alderson v. Madderson, Exch. Div., 29 Week. R. 105; Hammersly v. De ......
  • 30 N.W. 78 (Mich. 1886), Sickels v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 28, 1886
    ...if it directed a verdict at all, have instructed them to find for the defendant. Druse v. Wheeler, 26 Mich. 195; Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458. A.W. Scoville and Spaulding & Barker, for plaintiffs, Sickels and another. The road was built substantially on the old line. If the charge a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results