Brown v. Hazen
| Decision Date | 28 April 1863 |
| Citation | 11 Mich. 219 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | James H. Brown v. Isaac D. Hazen |
Submitted on Briefs April 17, 1863
Case made after judgment from Kent Circuit.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
H. B Brown, for plaintiff.
Withey & Gray, and A. Russell, for defendant.
Christiancy J.:
This is a case made after judgment, for a review upon the facts and the law. Brown sued Hazen in assumpsit, upon a promise to pay a note of one Van DerMade. The court made a written finding of facts, and gave judgment for the defendant.
One William Van DerMade was a tenant of defendant, Hazen, working a farm on shares. He had borrowed twenty-three dollars of plaintiff, Brown, July 1, 1859, for which Brown took his note payable in sixty days, with a chattel mortgage upon his share of the crops and a cow, to secure the same. In September afterwards--but whether before or after the maturity of the note does not appear-the defendant Hazen wishing to get possession of the farm, a verbal agreement was made between him and Van DerMade, by which the latter was to relinquish or give up to the former his share of the crops, to surrender his lease and quit the farm; in consideration of which Hazen among other things, agreed to pay Brown, on Van DerMade's note and mortgage, six dollars. Van DerMade, in pursuance of this agreement, commenced removing from the farm, when Brown came along, and being informed of the intended removal, told Van DerMade he must not leave the farm till his note and mortgage were paid. Van DerMade then commenced putting his things back in the house (and Brown went away), when Hazen came and inquired of Van DerMade what he was doing. Van DerMade told him what Brown had said; and thereupon another or additional arrangement was made between Van DerMade and Hazen. Thus far there is no conflict of testimony; but upon the point what the second arrangement was, there is some conflict. After a careful examination of the evidence, however, we agree with the court below, that, by the second agreement, Van DerMade, in addition to what he had by the first arrangement agreed to do, now further agreed to let Hazen have the cow upon which Brown held the mortgage, and Hazen agreed that, upon the delivery of the cow, he would pay Brown the balance of the note and mortgage. Both these arrangements seem to have been made the same day, and in the absence of Brown. Immediately after the second arrangement,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clinton v. Ross
...must be complied with. 12 Ark. 174; 31 Ark. 613; 45 Ark. 67; 52 Ark. 174; 76 Ark. 292; 88 Ark. 592; 20 Cyc. 187, 188; 12 Enc. of Ev. 8; 11 Mich. 219; 87 N.E. 597; 78 N.E. 126; 22 How. (U.S.) 28; 2 Am. Dec. 56 Miss. 649; 35 Conn. 343; 37 Am. Dec. 148; 105 Ill. 433. 2. The contract, by reason......
-
Calkins v. Chandler
...H. E. Dewey and J. A. Fairfield, for plaintiffs in error, cited: 1 Pars. on Cont., 368; 4 East. 462; 1 Penn. 382; 3 Penn. 282; 5 Rawle 68; 11 Mich. 219; 17 Mich. 355; 4 Am. D. E. Corbitt, for defendants in error, cited: King v. Upton, 4 Greenl. 387; Elting v. Vanderlyn, 4 Johns. 237. OPINIO......
-
Pratt v. Bates
...debt of the chair company, nor his promise any other than a promise to pay it as their debt. The statute is clear on this subject. Brown v. Hazen, 11 Mich. 219; Corkins Collins, 16 Mich. 478; Welch v. Marvin, 36 Mich. 59; Green v. Brookins, 23 Mich. 48. The promise to Kendall Hoyt and Arms,......
-
Halsted v. Francis
...v. McCarty, 22 Mich. 265;--and that the special promise to the plaintiff is collateral and within the statute of frauds,-- see Brown v. Hazen, 11 Mich. 219; Hogsett Ellis, 17 Mich. 351; and Waldo v. Simonson, 18 Mich. 345. The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial awarded. ......