Cascaden v. Magryta
| Decision Date | 03 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 60.,60. |
| Citation | 247 Mich. 267,225 N.W. 511 |
| Parties | CASCADEN et al. v. MAGRYTA et ux. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; James S. Parker, Judge.
Suit by Cecil M. Cascaden and another, copartners, against Joseph Magryta and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench. Chester J. Morse, of Detroit (Edgar C. Ashmead, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Joseph Lewandowski, of Detroit, for appellee.
This is a suit in assumpsit, with declaration upon the common counts, brought by plaintiffs to recover from defendants compensation for repairing a house damaged by fire. In the circuit the case was heard by the court, and judgment entered for defendants.
The legal question, presented by a most unsatisfactory record, may be stated as follows: In case of damage, by fire, to a residence, being purchased under land contract and occupied as a homestead by the purchasers, where parties were called by an adjuster, representing an insurance company thought to be liable for the loss, and not shown to be otherwise, and who gave the adjuster an estimate of their charges for making the repairs, and were told by the adjuster ‘to go out there,’ and were told by the purchasers that ‘it was all right to go ahead and replace it to the amount paid by the insurance company,’ and it was the intention of the purchasers that the insurance company would pay for the repairs and the intention of the parties making the repairs to look to the insurance company for their pay, and, after the repairs were nearly completed, the adjuster stated to the repair men that the insurance did not cover the loss, are the purchasers under legal obligation to pay for the repairs so made?
Plaintiffs claim the right to recover under an implied contract.
The defendants are husband and wife, and in no event can the wife be held personally liable. Farmer v. Best (Mich.) 224 N. W. 399.
Plaintiffs cannot recover on the theory of a contract implied in fact, for the work was not done and the materials not furnished under circumstances authorizing plaintiffs to entertain an expectation of pay from defendants. The plaintiffs expected the insurance company to make payment out of the insurance, and only after denial of liability by the adjuster did they seek to fasten liability upon defendants under an implied contract.
Is defendant Joseph Magryta liable upon a quasi or constructive contract?
There are two kinds of implied contracts; one implied in fact and the other implied in law. The first does not exist, unless the minds of the parties meet, by reason of words or conduct. The second is quasi or constructive, and does not require a meeting of minds, but is imposed by fiction of law, to enable justice to be accomplished, even in case no contract was intended.
In order to afford the remedy demanded by exact justice and adjust such remedy to a cause of action, the law sometimes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MICHIGAN EDUCL. EMPLOYEES MUT. INS. CO. v. Morris
...185-186, 504 N.W.2d 635 (1993), quoting Detroit v. Highland Park, 326 Mich. 78, 100, 39 N.W.2d 325 (1949), quoting Cascaden v. Magryta, 247 Mich. 267, 270, 225 N.W. 511 (1929).] "The essential elements of a quasi contractual obligation, upon which recovery may be had, are the receipt of a b......
-
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal A. Sweebe, Inc.
...party assents by implication because the requisite mutual assent is inferred from the conduct of the parties. See Cascaden v. Magryta, 247 Mich. 267, 270, 225 N.W. 511 (1929). 43. 13 Corbin, Contracts (rev. ed.), § 72.1(3), p. 457. Historically, a promise resulting from an account stated wa......
-
Scarlett v. Air Methods Corp.
...Pa. 340, 64 A.2d 821, 826 (1949) ; Bailey v. Interstate Airmotive , 358 Mo. 1121, 219 S.W.2d 333, 338 (1949) ; Cascaden v. Magryta , 247 Mich. 267, 225 N.W. 511, 512 (1929).7 We do not address the equally important question of whether, under the substantive state law applicable to a plainti......
-
Wright v. Genesee Cnty.
...is a difference between an implied-in-law contract and an implied-in-fact contract, as this Court explained in Cascaden v. Magryta , 247 Mich. 267, 270, 225 N.W. 511 (1929) :There are two kinds of implied contracts: one implied in fact, and the other implied in law. The first does not exist......