Coon v. Spaulding
| Decision Date | 26 October 1881 |
| Citation | 47 Mich. 162,10 N.W. 183 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | COON v. SPAULDING and another. |
Offer to perform a contract relating to the pressing of certain hay held not to have been made within a reasonable time after the making of the contract.
Error to Wayne.
F.A Baker, for plaintiff in error.
Henry M. Cheever, for defendants in error.
As stated in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, the main question in this case is, whether the plaintiffs below defendants in error, went to Coon's to press the hay contracted for within a reasonable time after the contract was made. The following is the written contract sued upon:
It will be noticed that the contract is silent as to who shall press the hay and also as to when it shall be pressed, and assuming that Spaulding & Rogers were to press the hay whether they were ready and offered to do it within a reasonable time will depend upon the admissibility and weight to be given certain oral testimony offered by them.
The plaintiffs below offered evidence, viz., the testimony of Rogers one of the plaintiffs, tending to show, that they were ready to commence pressing the hay at the time the contract was entered into, but that Mr. Coon was not ready and requested them to wait for three weeks until he could get certain fall work done. The plaintiffs also introduced a letterpress copy of a letter mailed November 10th to the defendant properly addressed postage prepaid, with their card in the envelope and a request to return in five days if not called for, but which was not returned, which letter was as follows:
To this they received no reply. There was no further or other communication between them, until they went to press the hay November 22d as already stated. And first was the evidence admissible? Counsel for plaintiff in error insists it was not for two reasons: First, that the conversation about waiting three weeks until Mr. Coon should get his fall work done took place at the time the contract was entered into, having been talked over immediately before and after the contract was signed, and that it was therefore merged in the written agreement. And the contract being one which the statute of frauds required to be in writing, could not be modified by a subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brady v. Cent. Excavators, Inc.
...reference to parol evidence. Chicago, K. & S. R. Co. v. Lane, 150 Mich. 162, 113 N.W. 22;Stange v. Wilson, 17 Mich. 342;Coon v. Spaulding, 47 Mich. 162, 10 N.W. 183;Toledo & A. A. R. Co. v. Johnson, 55 Mich. 456, 21 N.W. 888; Ferguson v. Arthur, 128 Mich. 297, 87 N.W. 259;Sloman v. National......
-
Sickels v. Anderson
...question of reasonable time should have been left to the jury. Byram v. Gordon, 11 Mich. 531; Stange v. Wilson, 17 Mich. 342; Coon v. Spaulding, 47 Mich. 162; S.C. N.W. 183. The court should, if it directed a verdict at all, have instructed them to find for the defendant. Druse v. Wheeler, ......
-
Boyington v. Sweeney
...6 Wis. 265;Nudd v. Wells, 11 Wis. 407; Benj. Sales, p. 891, § 1023, and p. 914, § 1048; Stange v. Wilson, 17 Mich. 342-348;Coon v. Spaulding, 47 Mich. 162, 10 N. W. Rep. 183; Cullum v. Wagstaff, 48 Pa. St. 300; Tufts v. McClure, 40 Iowa, 317;Cameron v. Wells, 30 Vt. 633;Bass v. White, 65 N.......
-
Harrow Spring Co. v. Whipple Harrow Co.
...agreement relating to the time when the shipments were to be made. Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 55 Mich. 461, 21 N.W. 888; Coon v. Spaulding, 47 Mich. 162, 10 N.W. 183; Stange v. Wilson, 17 Mich. 342. In the latter CAMPBELL, J., after referring to various cases cited which were claimed to estab......