Fuller v. Rice
| Decision Date | 23 January 1884 |
| Citation | 52 Mich. 435,18 N.W. 204 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | FULLER v. RICE. |
Where the plaintiff has performed valuable services for the defendant under a verbal contract, of which the latter has reaped the advantage, the former may recover therefor at the rate fixed by the contract, less any damages the defendant may have suffered by the failure of complete performance. In so far as the parties have acted under the contract, they are bound by its terms, notwithstanding the statute of frauds.
It is competent for parties to agree with each other for labor to be performed on the land of a third party; it cannot be objected that it is a contract for the commission of a trespass, or opposed to public policy, and if the owner of the land does not object the labor may be performed and the price recovered.
Error to Oceana.
M.H. Brooks, for plaintiff.
L.G Rutherford, for defendant and appellant.
Plaintiff sued to recover for services performed by him under an oral contract, whereby, as he testified, he agreed with defendant to cut, skid, haul, and put on the bank of the south branch of Pentwater river, in Ellridge township, 600,000 feet of logs; 200,000 feet in the season of 1880, and 200,000 feet in each of the two succeeding years; and also to clear the river from obstructions, and then deliver the logs at Hart, or at Wigton & Bosworth's mill-pond. For these services he testified that he was to be paid as follows: For cutting and banking the logs, $1 per thousand feet; for clearing the river, $600; and for delivering the logs at Hart or the mill-pond, $2.50 per thousand feet. Under this agreement he claimed to have performed what was to be done in the season of 1880, including the clearing of the river. The defendant did not dispute that some such agreement was made, nor that services were performed under it; but he denied that the terms were as plaintiff testified, and claimed that the price to be paid for the delivery of the logs was to compensate for services in clearing the river.
The declaration contained counts on the agreement, and also the common counts. On the trial defendant objected to evidence of the agreement, because, not being in writing, it was void under the statute of frauds. But this was not a valid objection, and was properly overruled. So far as the parties had acted in performance of the agreement they had consented to be governed by its terms, and they must be bound by them. Objection was also taken that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial