Hickey v. Hinsdale
Decision Date | 05 December 1863 |
Citation | 12 Mich. 99 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | Maurice Hickey and another v. David M. Hinsdale |
Heard October 14, 1863 [Syllabus Material]
Error to Wayne Circuit.
The action was replevin, by Hinsdale against Hickey and Bigelow who justified under an execution against Hinsdale, by virtue of which Hickey, acting as constable, and by direction of Bigelow, levied on the property replevied, which consisted mainly of household furniture. The execution was issued upon a judgment in favor of McBride, Robinson and Hoover, against Hinsdale as garnishee of Samuel Chamberlain, rendered March 1, 1858, for $ 249.58. On the trial, the defendants, as a part of their case, offered in evidence a paper in the words and figures following, to wit:
The evidence being closed, the defendants submitted to the court, in writing, several propositions of law, deemed by them to be material to the case, and required decision upon the same; among which were the following:
As to this proposition, the court found that the alleged contract of the plaintiff was competent evidence for some purposes; that it was not a valid and binding contract for the reason that no consideration appears upon its face, nor was proved, and also because the evidence showed that the attorney for the plaintiffs in that case, the said defendant Bigelow, had no authority to enter into such a contract on their part to compromise the judgment, and that it was an attempted compromise of the debt, and that an objection being taken to the admission of the alleged agreement, no attempt whatever was made to offer any evidence of a consideration, or of authority to Bigelow to make the compromise. The court found, further, that it was not an admission of the legality and regularity of the proceedings of the defendants; that it was not an admission of facts not appearing to have been known to the plaintiff at the time; that, as the evidence appeared, said paper could not operate as an estoppel, but that it would still have been void under the statute without the wife's signature, as a contract for the creation of a lien upon household furniture, and also upon certain articles in said inventory, which are exempt from execution by name.
As to this the court found, that the property having been levied upon on said execution, the levy not having been released the property remained in the legal custody of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cann v. Cann
...... creating [40 W.Va. 160] no obligation; it is nevertheless. competent and admissible as evidence. Hickey v. Hinsdale, 12 Mich. 99; Ayres v. Bane, 39 Iowa. 518; Atkins v. Plympton, 44 Vt. 21; Reis v. Hellman, 25 Ohio St. 180; Huffman v. ......
-
Cann v. Cann
...may be implied, or for any reason creating no obligation; it is nevertheless competent and admissible as evidence. Hickey v. Hinsdale, 12 Mich. 99; Ayres v. Bane, 39 Iowa, 518; Atkins v. Plympton, 44 Vt 21; Reis v. Hell-man, 25 Ohio St. 180; Huffman v. Cart-wright, 44 Tex. 296. It is certai......
-
Vogel v. Shaw, 1659
......Estoppel. cannot be relied upon to give effect to avoid contract. Scott v. Bush, 26 Mich. 418; Rodgers v. Lamb. Estate, 100 N.W. 440; Hickey v. Hinsdale, 12. Mich. 99; Lbr. Co. v. Wilson, 78 N.W. 338;. Percifield v. Black, 31 N.E. 955; Long v. Cross,. (Ind.) 21 N.E. 450; ......
-
Cann v. Cann
...promise may be implied, or so as for any reason to create no obligation; it is nevertheless competent and admissible as evidence. Hikey v. Hinsdale, 12 Mich. 99; Ayres v. Bane, 39 Iowa, 518; Atkins v. Plympton, 11 Vt. 21; Reis v. Hellman, 25 Ohio St. 180; Huffman v. Carticright, 44 Tex. 296......