Cline v. Hubbard

• Decision Date: 26 January 1875
• Citation: 31 Mich. 237
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: James Cline v. Rollin B. Hubbard and others

31 Mich. 237

James Cline v. Rollin B. Hubbard and others

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 26, 1875

Heard January 22, 1875

Error to Huron Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

George S. Engle, for plaintiff in error.

Pond & Brown and F. A. Baker, for defendants in error, were stopped by the court.

Campbell J. Cooley, J., and Graves, Ch. J., concurred. Christiancy J., did not sit in this case.

OPINION

Campbell, J.:

R. B. Hubbard & Co., the defendants in error, recovered in replevin for certain horses, sleighs and fixtures, which Cline claimed to own under dealings had previously between them. Cline was getting out logs for Hubbard & Co., and they had furnished and agreed to furnish him certain supplies. A contract was made in August, 1872, which among other things contained the following clause: "If the party of the first part shall furnish the teams for the second party, they shall give security to the first party for such advances." In December, 1872, Cline and his brother executed the following agreement concerning the property replevied, which the proof showed was put in their possession at the same time: "Huron City, December 11th, 1872. Received of R. B. Hubbard & Co., one pair of horses, one set of bob-sleighs, two binding chains, one set of harness, one set double and single trees, with chains, which we are to return to them on demand, in as good order as received. If either of the horses or other property is injured, or the horses or either of them die, we are to pay said R. B. Hubbard & Co. for all such damage or loss; also a suitable price for the use of the same. We also agree to buy said horses, sleighs and other fixtures, of said R. B. Hubbard & Co., if they so elect, and pay them $ 341, and interest from this date until the day of sale and payment. The above described sleighs, horses, etc., are those bought of Clark Haywood, of Port Hope, Michigan, on the 10th day of December, A. D., 1872. [Signed] James and Nathaniel Cline. Witnesses, C. E. Thompson, T, J. Groat."

The defendant in replevin sought to make out title in himself; first, by connecting the two written contracts and making the second security for the former; second, by contemporaneous parol agreement to that effect; third, by proof that the Hubbards had elected to sell, which he sought to show by different acts and admissions. The rulings complained of bore on these questions.

The contract of December 11th was entirely unambiguous, and whether given in furtherance of the previous contract or not was quite immaterial. It speaks for itself. But the previous contract contained no agreement to furnish teams, and no provision as to the terms on which they were to be taken if furnished. It left that...