Hoard v. Little

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Manning J.:
• Citation: Hoard v. Little, 7 Mich. 468 (Mich. 1859)
• Decision Date: 09 December 1859
• Parties: Lorenzo Hoard v. Amos Little

7 Mich. 468

Lorenzo Hoard v. Amos Little

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 9, 1859

Submitted December 6, 1859

Error to Lapeer circuit.

Little declared against Hoard in the court below as follows "For that the defendant, on the fifth day of October, A. D. 1857, was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of four hundred dollars, for the price and value of goods then sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, at his request. And in a like sum for the price and value of work then done, and materials for the same, provided by the plaintiff for the defendant, at his request. And in a like sum for money then lent by the plaintiff to the defendant, at his request. And in a like sum for money then paid by the plaintiff for the defendant, at his request. And in a like sum of money then received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. And in a like sum of money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, on an account then stated between them; which several moneys were to be respectively paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, on request; yet the defendant, though requested so to do, has not paid the several sums of money, or either of them, or any part thereof; to the plaintiff's damage, one thousand dollars, wherefore he brings suit, etc.

"N H. Redmond, Pl'ff's Att'y."

"copy.

"$ 300. One year from date, I, for value received, promise to pay William Guetchis, or bearer, three hundred dollars, with use. Dated Sept. 29, 1856.

"Lorenzo Hoard."

"To the above named defendant.

"Take notice, that on the trial of the above cause, the plaintiff under the money counts, will give in evidence a certain promissory note, of which the above is a true copy.

"N H. Redmond, Pl'ff's Att'y."

This declaration was filed as the commencement of suit, and having been duly served by the sheriff on defendant, he appeared and pleaded thereto, and the cause went to trial.

On the trial without a jury, the plaintiff offered to read in evidence the promissory note, a copy of which is set out at the foot of the plaintiff's declaration, to which evidence the defendant objected, because the plaintiff, in his declaration, had failed to aver any consideration therein on which to base a promise, and could not travel out of the record to make his case. The court admitted the note in evidence, and defendant excepted. The cause was then submitted to the court, and judgment rendered for plaintiff for the amount of the note.

Hoard brought error, and assigned errors in this court, as follows:

"That in the record and proceedings aforesaid, there is manifest error in this, to wit: That the declaration of said Amos Little is not sufficient in law to maintain said action thereof against the said Lorenzo Hoard, because there is no sufficient consideration stated therein on which to base a promise. And, also, because the said declaration contains no sufficient statement therein of any undertaking and promise on the part of the said Lorenzo Hoard, on which the said Amos Little is at law, entitled to judgment against the said Lorenzo Hoard, on the common counts in assumpsit; and also, because the notice accompanying the said declaration forms no part of the said declaration, in fact or substance."

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

J. R. White and A. B. Maynard, for plaintiff in error.

M. E. Crofoot, for defendant in error.

Manning, J., Martin Ch. J. and Campbell, J. concurred, Christiancy, J.

OPINION

Manning J.:

A...