Ford v. McLane

• fullCitation: Ford v. McLane, 131 Mich. 371, 91 N.W. 617 (Mich. 1902)
• Decision Date: 17 September 1902
• Citation: 131 Mich. 371,91 N.W. 617
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: FORD v. McLANE.

91 N.W. 617

131 Mich. 371

FORD v. McLANE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 17, 1902

Error to circuit court, Kent county; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.

Action by Maggie Ford against John H. McLane. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Crane Norris & Drew and Leonard F. Humphrey, for appellant.

Dunham & Malcolm, for appellee.

MOORE J.

The statement of questions of fact is taken from the charge of the court to the jury, as follows: 'This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the sum of five hundred dollars, claimed to have been loaned to the defendant by the plaintiff under an oral agreement made between them. On the part of the plaintiff it is claimed that while the construction of the Grand Rapids Belding & Saginaw Railroad was in progress the agreement in controversy was made; that the principal contractor for the construction of this railroad was William Alden Smith & Co. that J. H. McLane & Co., a firm of which the defendant is a member, was a subcontractor under Smith & Co., and that one Fred L. Beacham was a contractor for the construction of a portion of the road under McLane & Co. The plaintiff claims in substance, that on the 19th day of September, 1899, the defendant, John H. McLane, authorized and directed the plaintiff, through her agent, Fred Ford, to let Fred L. Beacham have not to exceed $500 in money, to be paid out for labor upon this railroad, and it is claimed that the defendant then and there agreed to repay the amount to the plaintiff as soon as the railroad was completed; that pursuant to this agreement the plaintiff let Mr. Beacham have $500, which the defendant has not paid, and for the recovery of which this action is brought. On the other hand, the defendant claims that no such agreement was ever made as claimed by the plaintiff; that he never authorized the payment to Beacham by plaintiff of any sum of money whatever; that he knew nothing about the transaction, and never agreed to pay the plaintiff any portion of the money she may have let Beacham have. Further, the defendant claims that, if plaintiff ever let Beacham have any money, she did it upon her own responsibility, and upon the credit of Beacham, and not upon his (the defendant's) credit or responsibility.' The jury rendered a verdict a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The case is brought here by writ of error.

Upon the trial the counsel sought to show that at the time of the transaction J. H. McLane & Co. had a bank account. This testimony was excluded. It is said this testimony was competent as bearing upon the probability of Mr. McLane making the loan. Counsel cite Midland Tp. v. Roscommon Tp., 39 Mich. 429, and many other cases. An examination of the cases cited will show them unlike the case at issue. There was no claim in this case that Mr. McLane needed to borrow money. The claim was that McLane & Co. were interested in not having the men quit work; that Beacham, the subcontractor, needed money; that Mrs. Ford refused to loan it to him, bur would furnish it to him on the credit of McLane. She produced testimony which, if believed, showed that agreement. Mr. McLane denied it. The case was submitted to the jury, who found the version of the witnesses for the plaintiff to be the correct one. Upon the completion of the testimony for plaintiff a motion to take the case away from the jury because within the statute of frauds was overruled, we think properly, under Larson v. Jenson, 53 Mich. 427, 19 N.W. 130. It is claimed that, if any promise was made by McLane, it was collateral to the promise of Mr.

Beacham,...