Hoffman v. Richards

• Citation: 57 N.W. 732,98 Mich. 489
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 26 January 1894
• Parties: HOFFMAN v. RICHARDS.

57 N.W. 732

98 Mich. 489

HOFFMAN v. RICHARDS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 26, 1894

Error to circuit court, Ingham county; Rollin H. Person, Judge.

Action by Albert Hoffman against Jehial A. Richards for money alleged to be due on a settlement between them. The action was brought in justice's court, where plaintiff had judgment. On appeal to the circuit, he again recovered, and defendant brought error. Reversed.

A. M Cummins, (R. A. Montgomery, of counsel,) for appellant.

Arthur D. Prossor, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This case originated in justice court. The plaintiff, in 1891 became a farm tenant to defendant under an agreement to work the defendant's farm on shares. He purchased a half interest in certain stock, tools, and various other articles on the farm, agreeing to pay therefor $209, and gave his notes for the amount. In August, 1892, an agreement was made between the parties that the plaintiff should leave the farm and should sell to defendant his interest in the growing crops and in all the personal increase in stock, etc. A bill of sale was made and delivered, and plaintiff gave possession to defendant. This action was brought to recover an indebtedness claimed to be due to plaintiff arising out of this transaction. The parties are at variance as to what the agreement under which the plaintiff left the farm was. Upon the trial at the circuit the plaintiff limited himself to a claim for a stated sum of $224, which it was contended the defendant agreed to pay him for his interest in the property. The defendant, on the other hand, alleged that he had an account against the plaintiff in addition to the notes hereinbefore referred to, and that the agreement was on the part of the plaintiff that he would leave the farm, and give a bill of sale of his interest in the stocks, etc., in payment of these notes. That such a bill of sale was executed, and the notes delivered, is not in dispute, the controversy between the parties upon this point being whether there was, in addition to this, an agreement upon the part of defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $224. It is strenuously insisted by the defendant's counsel that the plaintiff's own testimony shows that there was no meeting of the minds of the parties upon any such contract as is asserted in his behalf, and the circuit judge was requested both at the close of the plaintiff's testimony and by request to charge at the conclusion of the whole testimony, to direct a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff supported his claim by no other testimony than his own, and the question presented calls for a thorough examination of his testimony. As it bears upon this point it is as follows: "I told him, [meaning defendant,] if he returned the notes, I would return the stock to him; and I wanted $224 for the interest I had in the place, stock, and crops that I had raised through the summer; and he agreed to that, and, after the notes was returned, he would not pay the $224. That was all the understanding there was between us." On cross-examination he testified: "He agreed to pay me, and when the bargain was made he wouldn't do it. I asked him for my pay. Next day. After we made the writing, I went down after my pay. Same day I moved away. It was while I was on the place. He told me he wouldn't do it. He said he was not owing me anything, and then I went right off from the place. While I was yet on the place, I told him I wanted him to pay me $224. He denied it. That was before I left the place. The reason I didn't stay there and insist on my rights in the crops was that he was so mean continuously that I couldn't get along with him." In another place in his testimony he testified as follows: "No, I didn't know before I left the farm that he was claiming he didn't owe me. I don't just understand. I was down there, and wanted $224 in cash, and he would agree to that. When the notes was returned, and I had returned the stock, he would not pay the $224. I first asked him to, the first day I was down there. The same day when we made out the papers. The same day or next. It was the same day. Yes, sir; I am pretty sure of that. I ain't positive whether it was the same day or the next. I...