Farwell v. Johnston

Decision Date20 June 1876
Citation34 Mich. 342
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesElizabeth Farwell v. John Johnston and another

Heard June 14, 1876

Appeal in Chancery from St. Clair Circuit.

Decree reversed and the demurrer overruled, with costs of both courts, and the cause remanded.

Chadwick & Voorheis, for complainant.

B. C Farrand and C. R. Brown, for defendants.

OPINION

Campbell, J:

Complainant filed her bill for the specific performance of an agreement whereby, in consideration of her release of a dower and homestead right by a deed which she made with her husband to the defendant Johnston, he agreed to convey to her a parcel of two acres, after the title to his purchase was cleared of certain incumbrances, which the bill avers to have been done. Graham is made a defendant by reason of an alleged conveyance to him by Johnston.

A demurrer was put in, setting out four grounds first, want of jurisdiction; second, remedy at law; third, that Graham is not averred to be a purchaser in bad faith; fourth, that the bill is only filed to obtain compensation.

The principal defense is that of the statute of frauds. It is claimed the only written document relied on is not a complete and clear contract, and that no verbal arrangements are valid. It is also claimed that the contract has no sufficient consideration.

The writing was as follows:

"Port Huron, Mich., October 15, 1873.

"B. C. Farrand, Esq.: I agree to give Mrs. Farwell two acres of land for herself, and settle up the entire thereof when the abstract is made perfect according to the understanding.

"John Johnston.

"Two acres to be from southeast corner to school-house.

"J. J."

The bill does not aver this writing to have been the contract, which is set up independently; and the object of this document was, as appears from the bill, as a part of the consideration of complainant's signing her own deed, but not the whole consideration. It is not set forth as a contract between Johnston and complainant, and may be assumed to have been one of the assurances which she desired to have in the hands of some reputable third person.

The contract itself is set out plainly enough in the bill, except that it does not describe specifically the particular mortgages which were to be discharged before she would be entitled to her two acres. They are, however, averred to have been discharged long since by a decree in chancery, and there is no ground of demurrer alleged for want of a more specific description. On general demurr...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Bowers v. Hutchinson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1899
    ...Pa.St. 18; 89 Am. Dec. 172; 113 Mass. 257; 22 Barb. 97; 41 Barb. 92; 37 N.Y. 621; 8 W. & S. 102; 1 Blackf. 97; 14 Ohio 257; 7 Johns. 57; 34 Mich. 342; Ala. 311; 1 B. Mon. 282; 9 Humph. 477; 35 Miss. 638; 17 Mo. 564; 7 Price, 577; 11 Ves. 526; 2 Brown, Ch. 377; 3 Meriv. 266; 2 B. & C. 547; 4......
  • Sullivan v. Townsend
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1926
    ... ... J. Eq. 332, 66 ... Am. Dec. 773; Ruch v. Ruch, 159 Mich. 231, ... 124 N.W. 52; McClure v. Otrich, 118 Ill ... 320, 8 N.E. 784; Farwell v. Johnston, 34 ... Mich. 342; Holland v. Hoyt, 14 Mich. 238; ... Bromeling v. Bromeling, [30 Ariz. 71] 202 ... Mich. 474, 168 N.W. 431; Korminsky ... ...
  • Sturgeon v. Ann C. Burrall Ex'rs.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 31, 1877
    ...467; 5 Johns. Ch. 184; How. Pr. 53; 46 N. Y. 626; Kenchbon v. McCullough, 4 Law & Eq. 13; Wescott v. Wicks et al. 72 Ill. 524; Farwell v. Johnston, 34 Mich. 342; Place v. Minster et al. 65 N. Y. 89. As to fraud: Story on Sales, § 158; Story's Eq. Jur. § 331; 1 Williams on Ex. 47; Gale v. Ga......
  • Southern Loan & Trust Co v. Benbow
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1904
    ...Stanard, 2 Brock. 311 [Fed. Cas. No. 18, 094]), or a promissory note given by a purchaser (Nims v. Bigelow, 45 N. H. 343)." In Farwell v. Johnston, 34 Mich. 342, the court says on page 344: "The objection for want of consideration is without any foundation. It has always been held that a re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT