Goslin v. Goslin, 47

• Decision Date: 07 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 47,47
• Citation: 369 Mich. 372,120 N.W.2d 242
• Parties: Harold T. GOSLIN and Margaret E. Goslin, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Charlotte GOSLIN, a/k/a Lottie Goslin, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 242

120 N.W.2d 242

369 Mich. 372

Harold T. GOSLIN and Margaret E. Goslin, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Charlotte GOSLIN, a/k/a Lottie Goslin, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 47.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 7, 1963.

Patterson & Patterson, Bay City, for defendant and appellant.

Philip Woodworth, Bad Axe, for plaintiffs and appellees.

Before the Entire Court.

SMITH, Justice.

Plaintiffs, Harold T. Goslin and Margaret E. Goslin, husband and wife sued Charlotte Goslin for specific performance. Harold T. Goslin is a son of Charlotte Goslin. The trial court found that an enforceable contract for the sale of realty was entered into between plaintiffs and the defendant and her deceased husband, Alfred J. Goslin. Charlotte Goslin appeals from the decree of specific performance.

The question for review is whether or not, in view of the facts and circumstances two receipts are sufficient as memoranda to take the transaction out of the statute of frauds. C.L.1948, § 566.108, Stat.Ann.1953 Rev. § 26.908.* Both receipts were written on a common printed receipt form found in what is often referred to as a cash receipt book. There is writing on both the front and back of each.

The first receipt reads as follows:

'No. ___

Dec 1 1947

Received of Harold Goslin

Fifteen Hundred Dollars

Amount Paid $1,500

Balance Due $7,500

/s/ A. J. Goslin'

On the back of this receipt there is the notation: 'Payment on farm he lives on.'

The second receipt reads as follows:

'No. ___

Mar 1957

Received of Harold Goslin

Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars

Payment on Farm Sec.--7.42 acres

Amount Paid $2,500

Balance Due $9,000

/s/ Alfred J. Goslin

/s/ Lottie M. Goslin'

On the back is written the following notation:

'Description

Town 14 N Range 10 E N 42 A of W

1/2 NW 1/4 FRL

9000.00

500.00 Pd.

8,500.00 Bal.

/s/ Alfred J. Goslin'

From the pretrial statement it appears that the issues framed for trial were as follows: 1. Was there an agreement binding on the defendant? 2. What was it? 3. Is it enforceable? 4. Has defendant violated it? Two other issues contained in the pretrial statement are not pertinent to this discussion. Judge Quinn found that there was an agreement between plaintiffs and the defendant and her husband and that the agreement was enforceable.

Defendant and her husband owned and farmed 140 acres near the 42 acre farm presently in dispute. In 1946 they entered into a land contract for the purchase of the 42 acre farm for the sum of $9,000. The land contract was fulfilled by deed on May 13, 1948. It is not denied that defendant and her husband visited plaintiffs in their apartment in Sebewaing in the spring of 1947, and that some kind of an agreement respecting the 42 acre farm was reached between the parties. In August, 1947, plaintiffs moved to the house on said farm and have resided there since. Plaintiffs have made a number of repairs and improvements on the house. Defendant and her husband farmed that portion of the 42 acres not occupied by the house and its immediate surroundings. Plaintiff Harold T. Goslin was engaged in business not connected with the farming operation. Defendant and her husband paid the taxes and insurance on the entire property. Defendant and her husband spent approximately $2500.00 to tile the farm. The proofs tend to show that defendant and her husband agreed to sell the farm to plaintiffs for the sum of $9,000, the amount it cost them. It is clear that $2,500 was added to the purchase price to cover the expense of tiling. Plaintiffs have paid $3,000 leaving a balance of $8,500. About a year after his father's death Harold T. Goslin tendered $4,000 to his mother, the defendant. She refused the tender and denied making any such agreement and now rests her defense on the statute of frauds.

Plaintiffs rely on our decision in Duke v. Miller, 355 Mich. 540, 94 N.W.2d 819. In Duke, plaintiffs appealed from an order dismissing their bill of complaint for specific performance for the sale of land. They relied upon a memorandum which reads as follows:

'Detroit, Mich., Sept. 24, 1957.

'Received of Mr. Newell Duke $150.00 DOLLARS as Down Payment on Lot 109 on Fenkel

Balance $4,350

'$150.00

(s) Ray Miller'

We held this memorandum to be sufficient under the statute of frauds despite defendant's attack that the memorandum did not specify the time for payment of the balance and closing the deal. We said that when a contract is silent as to time of performance or payment, absent any expression of a contrary intent, the law will presume a reasonable time. Speaking for the Court in Duke, at page 543, at page 821 of 94 N.W.2d Justice Dethmers wrote as follows:

'Indulgence of that presumption or inference does not amount to the court's making a new contract for the parties or varying its terms, but merely gives effect to what it is reasonable to assume the parties intended when no contrary intention appears on the face of the instrument.'

However, defendant argues herein on appeal that the agreement in question contemplates deferred payments and that when such is the case the memoranda must contain every detail of the agreement, otherwise it falls within the statute. In view of the authority cited to support her position it would be easy to dismiss this argument by simply pointing to the fact that the memoranda in question do not indicate on the face of either that deferred payments were intended. It is sound and more meaningful, however, to refer bench and bar to Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 2, § 498, page 683:

'Let us proceed, therefore, with a general consideration of what constitutes a...