Crippen v. Hope
| Decision Date | 18 April 1876 |
| Citation | 38 Mich. 344 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Warren S. Crippen v. Edward Hope |
Submitted January 17, 1878
Error to Kalamazoo.
Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
Judgment reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.
Balch & Howard for plaintiff in error.
May Buck & Powers for defendant in error.
The facts in this case are very much the same as when the case was here before. See Crippen v. Hope, 34 Mich. 55.
On the trial below in the present case the plaintiff (defendant in error) sought to avoid the force and effect of the settlement upon which the case was before decided, by evidence tending to prove that such settlement was procured by the defendant through fraud and misrepresentation.
Counsel for defendant, to meet this theory of the case, requested the court to charge the jury that "if the plaintiff sought to avoid the settlement on the ground of fraud, he could only do so by returning or offering to return what property he had obtained by virtue of the agreed settlement, and if he, after the discovery of any fraud, did not offer to return the property obtained as aforesaid to defendant, he thereby ratified the settlement and cannot recover."
There was evidence tending to show that the defendant had performed his part of the agreed terms of settlement, as stated in the previous decision. It also appeared in this case that, according to the terms of settlement, defendant was to give his note for $ 10 to the plaintiff, and that this was done at the time the settlement was made, and there was no evidence tending to show that this note, or any part of the property delivered by defendant to plaintiff had ever been returned by the latter, or any offer made by him to return the same.
This request, which was refused, it will be seen from what has been said, clearly should have been given, unless the reasons given by the court for refusing the same are deemed sufficient.
This request was handed to the court at the close of the charge, and for this reason the court refused to give it, it being the practice in that court to present the requests to charge at an earlier stage of the case.
While the practice referred to may be, and undoubtedly is an excellent one, yet it must be apparent to any one that the charge of the court may itself develop the necessity of counsel's calling the attention of the court to some point that has been overlooked and asking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stefanac v. Cranbrook Educational Community
...the ground of fraud, he should tender promptly upon discovery of the fraud, lest he be held to have ratified the contract. See Crippen v. Hope, 38 Mich. 344 (1878); Burns v. Reading Estate, 188 Mich. 591, 602, 155 N.W. 479 (1915).In Kirl v. Zinner, 274 Mich. 331, 335, 264 N.W. 391 (1936), o......
-
State v. Barry
...v. Railroad Co., 34 Hun 497; Leydecker v. Brintnall, 158 Mass. 292, 33 N.E. 399; Brick v. Bosworth, 162 Mass. 334, 39 N.E. 36; Crippen v. Hope, 38 Mich. 344; Carey v. Railway Co., 61 Wis. 71, 20 648; Allen v. Perry, 56 Wis. 178, 14 N.W. 3. In a majority of the cases cited requests for instr......
-
Seeck v. Jakel
...68 A. 635; Drohan v. Lake Shore Ry., 162 Mass. 435, 38 N.E. 1116; Pangborn v. Continental Ins. Co., 67 Mich. 683, 35 N.W. 814; Crippen v. Hope, 38 Mich. 344; v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 67 Minn. 74, 69 N.W. 628; Lane v. Dayton Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 581, 48 S.W. 1094; Brainard v. Van Dyke, 71 V......
-
Foster v. University Lumber & Shingle Co.
...68 A. 635; Drohan v. Lake Shore Ry., 162 Mass. 435, 38 N.E. 1116; Pangborn v. Continental Ins. Co., 67 Mich. 683, 35 N.W. 814; Crippen v. Hope, 38 Mich. 344; v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 67 Minn. 74, 69 N.W. 628; Lane v. Dayton Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 581, 48 S.W. 1094; Brainard v. Van Dyke, 71 V......