Ellis v. Maxson
| Decision Date | 12 October 1869 |
| Citation | 19 Mich. 186 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Thomas Ellis v. Joseph D. Maxson |
Heard October 6, 1869
Error to Calhoun Circuit.
This was an action of assumpsit brought bye Thomas Ellis against Joseph D. Maxson upon a promissory note; the defense to which, was that the plaintiff had agreed among other things to cancel and surrender the note, in consideration that the defendant would sell and convey to the plaintiff a parcel of land in the State of Illinois. On the trial the defendant offered parol evidence of this contract, to which the plaintiff objected,--that to be valid, it must be in writing. No proof of the laws of Illinois affecting contracts for the sale of lands was offered. The Court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. The jury found for the defendant and the judgment entered on the verdict is brought into this Court by writ of error.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
T. G Pray, for plaintiff in error.
L. D. Dibble, for defendant in error.
Graves, J. did not sit in this case.
The only error assigned in this cause is based upon the admission of parol proof of a contract for the sale of lands in the State of Illinois, there being no evidence to show what the law of that State required to make land contracts valid.
The evidence was properly admitted. A parol contract to sell lands was good at common law. It is only made void by statute. If we should make any presumption, in the absence of evidence, as to the provisions of any foreign laws, it would be that they conform in substance to the general principles of the common law. How universally we could make such a presumption it is not necessary to consider now. We certainly cannot presume that the Legislature of another State had adopted all of our statutes, and therefore we must have proof before we can know that they have passed any statute. This question was decided in Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. R. 181. See also, Whitford v. The Panama R. R. Co. 23 N.Y. 465, 468.
If the contract in question was required by the statutes of Illinois to be in writing, the statutes should have been introduced.--People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. R. 349. In the absence of such proof, it was properly assumed to be valid.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
did not sit in this case....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Rincker
...p. 248; Bank v. Lambert, 4 Rob., 463; State v. Cross, 68 Ia. 180; Hickman v. Alpaugh, 21 Cal. 225; Walsh v. Dart, 12 Wis. 635; Ellis v. Maxon, 19 Mich. 186; Savage O'Neill, 44 N.Y. 298; Lucas v. Laden, 28 Mo. 342; Connolly v. Riley, 25 Md. 402; Green v. Rugely, 23 Tex. 539; Hall v. Pillow, ......
-
Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Palmer
...Hoyt v. McNeil, 13 Minn. 390; Hunt v. Johnson, 44 N.Y. 27; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1; Evans v. Reynolds, 32 Ohio St. 163; Ellis v. Maxson, 19 Mich. 186; Dainese v. Hale, 91 U.S. 13; Scudder v. Nat. Bank, 91 U.S. 406; Roots v. Merriwether, 8 Bush, 397. Plaintiff contends that the Illino......
-
Wells v. Schuster-Hax Nat. Bank
... ... indulge, the creditor, not the assignee, has the right to ... bring this action. Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. 181; Ellis v ... Maxson, 19 Mich. 186 ... Second ... The appellant contends that, when the creditor recovered the ... judgment in the Missouri ... ...
-
Worthington v. Hanna
...we have in the absence of proof to the contrary, held them valid when conforming to the common law: High, appellant, 2 Doug. 515; Ellis v. Maxson, 19 Mich. 186. But we make no presumption that a transaction valid under our laws is not valid elsewhere. The case does not show very clearly tha......