Cook v. Wolverine Stockyards Co., 145

Citation344 Mich. 207,73 N.W.2d 902
Decision Date28 December 1955
Docket NumberNo. 145,145
PartiesFloyd E. COOK and Irene J. Cook, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WOLVERINE STOCKYARDS COMPANY, a corporation of St. Johns, Michigan, Defendant and Appellee. Motion
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

V. O. Braun and Kenneth B. Kelly, Owosso, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Dykema, Jones & Wheat, Thomas L. Munson, Detroit, for defendant and appellee, Leo Corkin, St. Johns, of counsel.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

A jury returned verdict for plaintiffs. The court entered judgment non obstante veredicto for defendant. We granted plaintiffs leave to appeal in the nature of mandamus. The case has come up on a settled record without bill of exceptions or settled case, defendant, as appellee, thus having been left with the alternative of assuming the burden of procuring an expensive transcript of an extended trial and, as cross-appellant, preparing and noticing a proposed bill of exceptions in order to urge here the other grounds it advanced below in support of its motions for new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto, or waiving consideration thereof here and running the risk of reversal and entry of judgment on the verdict without determination of its other asserted grounds. Peters v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 282 Mich. 426, 276 N.W. 504. The judgment non obstante veredicto was a final judgment which disposed of the case, and for review of which writ of error or, under present Court rules which have left the character of the remedy of mandamus unchanged. Quail v. Cole, 260 Mich. 642, 245 N.W. 542, general appeal would lie and afford the adequate and proper remedy. We are now satisfied, therefore, that leave to appeal in the nature of mandamus was improvidently granted. Cattermole v. Ionia Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 274, 99 N.W. 1; Skutt v. Kent Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 477, 99 N.W. 405; City of Flint v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 146 Mich. 439, 109 N.W. 769; Hartz v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 164 Mich. 35, 129 N.W. 15; Kingsley v. Kent Circuit Judge, 171 Mich. 305, 137 N.W. 71; Trumbull Motor Car Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 189 Mich. 554, 155 N.W. 532; Lapham v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 243 Mich. 154, 219 N.W. 650.

Our granting of leave having occasioned the expense of this appeal and anticipating the possibility of application for leave to take a delayed general appeal on the same limited assignment of errors here presented if they be not now determined, we deem it appropriate to observe that we do not consider them well taken. Plaintiffs' declaration planted their right to recover on a series of transactions, all of which occurred under or in connection with an alleged agreement between plaintiff husband and defendant, by which the former agreed to buy and sell cattle for defendant but to take title in his own name for the purpose of evading the statutes, Michigan public service commission rules and taxes applicable to his transportation thereof if the truth of defendant's ownership were disclosed; also set up in the declaration as in furtherance of such scheme and as partial basis of plaintiffs' claimed right to recover, was a chattel mortgage allegedly given by plaintiffs to defendant. The trial court held that an illegal contract, against public policy, had been pleaded and that under such circumstances courts will not enforce it or grant relief thereunder but leave the parties where they have placed themselves. In this the court was correct. Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43 N.W. 1102, 6 L.R.A. 457; Cashin v. Pliter, 168 Mich. 386, 134 N.W. 482; Mulliken v. Naph-Sol Refining Co., 302 Mich. 410, 4 N.W.2d 707; Day v. Chamberlain, 223 Mich. 278, 193 N.W. 824; Dettloff v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 195 Mich. 117, 161 N.W. 949; Turner v. Schmidt Brewing Co., 278 Mich. 464, 270 N.W. 750. This is not, as plaintiffs urge, a situation, as in Eastern Distributing Corp. v. Lightstone, 257 Mich. 184, 241 N.W. 189, in which we denied recovery under a contract consisting of several promises based on several considerations because some were illegal, but allowed recovery under the common counts on those which were legal because they were severable from the rest. Here all the transactions are alleged as a part and in pursuance of the illegal purpose and contract and all are tainted with the illegality. When the trial court pointed this out plaintiffs sought to amend their declaration to eliminate the allegations disclosing the illegality of the contract. While the meager record does not contain the proposed amended declaration, it is evident that the evidnce required to support the original declaration and that necessary to prove the amended one would not be the same. Thus, the amendment represented a change in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Kravitz v. Summersett (In re Great Lakes Comnet, Inc.), Case No. GL 16–00290–jtg (Jointly Administered)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Michigan
    • June 15, 2018
    ...to implicate a penal or criminal statute in order for the wrongful conduct rule to apply. See Cook v. Wolverine Stockyards Co. , 344 Mich. 207, 209, 73 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. 1955) ; McDonald v. Hall , 193 Mich. 50, 61, 159 N.W. 358 (Mich. 1916).14 The court disagrees. McDonald and Cook were dec......
  • US v. $3,000 IN CASH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • November 29, 1995
    ...wrongdoing by Moylan in Count I does not constitute an admission on the part of the government. 10See, e.g., Cook v. Wolverine Stockyards Co., 344 Mich. 207, 73 N.W.2d 902 (1955) (submission of false documents to the state constituted unclean hands sufficient to bar a plaintiff's claim agai......
  • Orzel by Orzel v. Scott Drug Co., Docket No. 98506
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • August 15, 1995
    ...394 Mich. 83, 228 N.W.2d 386 (1975); Manning v. Bishop of Marquette, 345 Mich. 130, 76 N.W.2d 75 (1956); Cook v. Wolverine Stockyards Co., 344 Mich. 207, 73 N.W.2d 902 (1955); Budwit v. Herr, 339 Mich. 265, 63 N.W.2d 841 (1954); Piechowiak v. Bissell, 305 Mich. 486, 9 N.W.2d 685 (1943); Ohi......
  • Evans & Luptak, PLC v. Lizza, Docket No. 223927.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • August 23, 2002
    ...to enforce contracts that contravene public policy, see Weller v. Weller, 344 Mich. 614, 75 N.W.2d 34 (1956); Cook v. Wolverine Stockyards Co., 344 Mich. 207, 73 N.W.2d 902 (1955); Cudnik v. William, Beaumont Hosp., 207 Mich.App. 378, 383-384, 525 N.W.2d 891 (1994), I would join the weight ......
  • 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