Howard v. Reaume
| Decision Date | 30 November 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 26.,26. |
| Citation | 16 N.W.2d 686,310 Mich. 119 |
| Parties | HOWARD et ux. v. REAUME et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by George Howard and Sarah Howard, his wife, against Charles E. Reaume and Delia A. Reaume for damages for alleged fraud. The cause was originally begun in chancery but transferred to the law side of the court. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Vincent M. Brennan, Judge.
Robert D. Anspach, of Detroit (A. Lewis Fineberg, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Roy H. Lockwood and Charles H. Atwell, both of Detroit, for appellees.
This case was begun in chancery, but at the time of trial was transferred to the law side of the court for jury trial. Defendants appeal from a judgment of $1,500, entered on jury verdict for plaintiffs.
On April 15, 1940, defendant Charles Reaume and his daughter, defendant Delia Reaume, entered into a written contract to sell certain furniture located in a rooming house at 1121-23 west Kirby avenue, Detroit, to plaintiffs for $2,500, payable $1,500 down and the balance in monthly installments of $50. The contract provided, in substance, that defendants retained title to the furniture until the purchase price was paid and that, upon default in any payment for 10 days, they could take immediate possession of the furniture and retain all payments thereon as their liquidated damages for nonperformance.
Royal Reaume, the son of said Charles Reaume and brother of Delia Reaume, owned the rooming-house property, and on the same date, April 15, 1940, he leased it to plaintiffs for three years at $150 a month. They paid the monthly installments to defendants and the monthly rental to Royal Reaume until about February. 1941, when trouble arose between them. It appears that plaintiffs had certain electric wiring in the rooming house repaired at a cost of $105 and deducted that amount from their February rent. The lessor, Royal Reaume, denied their right to make such deduction and began a possessory action before a circuit court commissioner to evict them for non-payment of rent. 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 14975 et seq. (Stat.Ann. § 27.1986 et seq.). On March 7, 1941, the commissioner entered a judgment of restitution and determined that plaintiffs owed $150 as rent for February. They did not pay said rent and did not appeal from the judgment within the five-day period allowed for appeal. About March 14th a writ of restitution was issued and plaintiffs and their furniture were evicted from the rooming house. Plaintiffs defaulted in making their monthly payments under the contract, and defendants took possession of the furniture.
A few days after their eviction, plaintiffs began a chancery action against Royal Reaume and defendants Charles and Delia Reaume to set aside the judgment of restitution and for a determination of their damages. On motion of Royal Reaume the suit was dismissed as to him, but the record does not show the ground for such dismissal. Subsequent to beginning such suit, plaintiffs, who were defendants in the possessory action, petitioned the circuit court for leave to take a delayed appeal from the judgment of restitution entered March 7th. An order was entered granting them leave to take a delayed appeal, but on review we issued writ of mandamus directing vacation of such order. Reaume v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 299 Mich. 305, 300 N.W. 97. After our decision in the possessory action, the present case was brought on for trial and, with the court's approval, was transferred to the law side of the court.
In their declaration, filed in lieu of the bill of complaint, plaintiffs set forth the facts relative to their purchase of the furniture from defendants and their lease of the rooming house from Royal Reaume, and relative to the judgment of restitution in the possessory action. They alleged that, immediately following the entry of said judgment of restitution, the parties and their attorneys began negotiations for settlement of their disputes and differences; that plaintiffs offered to pay Royal Reaume the rent determined by the commissioner to be due and to pay the installment due on the furniture contract; that Delia Reaume, acting for herself and as agent for her father and brother, promised not to evict plaintiffs or have writ of restitution issued while the negotiations for settlement were in progress; and that, in reliance upon such promise, they did not pay the February rent or take an appeal from the judgment of restitution. Plaintiffs charged that defendant Delia Reaume violated her promise not to evict them while negotiations for settlement were pending, and further, that she made such promise in bad faith, without intention of performance, and as part of a conspiracy to defraud and deprive them of their lease and furniture. Plaintiffs further alleged that they had paid defendants a total of $2,050 under their contract for the purchase of the furniture and that without the lease the furniture had little value. They claimed that, in connection with their negotiations for settlement and with the approval of defendant Delia Reaume, they had arranged for the sale of the furniture and roominghouse business, but that such sale was not completed before they were evicted. They claimed damages of $2,050. Defendants answered, denying the charge of fraud and that plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
It appears that practically all of the dealings were between plaintiff George Howard and defendant Delia Reaume. Howard testified, in substance, that plaintiffs did not pay the February rent and did not appeal from the judgment of restitution within the five-day period, because of Delia Reaume's agreement not to evict them while negotiations for settlement were pending. He testified regarding an interview with said Delia Reaume and her attorney, immediately following the entry of such judgment, as follows:
‘There was some discussion at that time concerning the sale of this property (furniture) to a third person. * * *
‘The Court: Did you have any conversation with Miss Reaume regarding that deal?
* * *
‘There was a discussion of the sale of the property, and that I was not to be evicted until the property was disposed of. * * *
‘That was the sum and substance of it, we discussed the question of selling, and I was supposed not to be evicted as long as there was a sale pending. * * *
Plaintiffs' attorney, who was also present at such interview, testified in part:
‘After the disposition of the cause, the four of us retired slowly from the court room, and in the corridor we discussed the effects of this case. * * *
‘Mr. Howard had given me the $150. I told Miss Reaume I would pay the money, I would sell back to her, or we would obtain a purchaser for the porperty to avoid future relationship between Mr. Howard and herself. * * *
‘Q. Did you have any further conversation with Miss Reaume or Mr. Fineberg, her attorney, who was there at that time? * * * A. Mr. Fineberg and I, in conjunction with Miss Reaume, who was present, discussed this case. I asked Mr. Fineberg if he wanted us to pay the money. * * *
‘Mr. Fineberg said, ‘We don't want the property, we will not evict you until you have an opportunity to pay this judgment.’ * * *
‘My conversation with Miss Reaume was to the effect that we had someone to take the place over and let Mr. Howard out. * * *
* * *
‘That was during the five-day period. * * *
‘He reassured me that there would be no attempt to dispossess Mr. Howard.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Disner v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...challenged on other grounds, that required fraud to be "established by a preponderance of the evidence"); Howard v. Reaume, 310 Mich. 119, 125, 16 N.W.2d 686 (1944) (in an action at law court stated that "it is elementary that fraud will not be presumed but must be established by a preponde......
-
Mina v. General Star Indem. Co.
...v. Russell, 346 Mich. 319, 325, 78 N.W.2d 136 (1956); Kirk v. Vaccaro, 344 Mich. 226, 231, 73 N.W.2d 871 (1955); Howard v. Reaume, 310 Mich. 119, 125, 16 N.W.2d 686 (1944). However, in Grimshaw v. Aske, 332 Mich. 146, 157, 50 N.W.2d 866 (1952), the Court stated, without citing any authority......
-
Eaton Corp. v. Easton Associates, Inc.
...and one makes a separate representation of fact in a matter not directly part of that contractual relationship. In Howard v. Reaume, 310 Mich. 119, 16 N.W.2d 686 (1944), defendants sold certain furniture in a rooming house to plaintiffs. A relative of defendants owned the rooming house and ......
-
US Fibres, Inc. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
...assurances of the nature which were given concerning fabrication and erection is well stated in the early case of Howard v. Reaume, 310 Mich. 119, 126, 16 N.W. 2d 686 (1944), as "Statements promissory in their character that one will do a particular thing in the future are not misrepresenta......