Huff v. Hall

• Decision Date: 22 April 1885
• Citation: 23 N.W. 88,56 Mich. 456
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HUFF v. HALL.

23 N.W. 88

56 Mich. 456

HUFF v. HALL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 22, 1885

Error to Hillsdale.

H.G. Bailey, for plaintiff.

C.A Shepard and John B. Shipman, for defendant and appellant.

CAMPBELL J.

Plaintiff sued defendant to recover her alleged share in the proceeds of certain property, consisting of 50 acres of land in Adams Hillsdale county, which she claims to have conveyed to him subject to a certain mortgage of $1,354, and interest, upon the agreement that he would pay her the balance of any proceeds when he should sell it, and that it should not be sold for less than $3,500,--she to have the use of it till sold. Plaintiff claims that defendant sold the property in March, 1878, to David Stebbins, of Toledo, and received in payment a house and lot in Toledo, valued at $3,500. The amount of the mortgage at the date of this sale was $1,792.17, which would leave the balance claimed at about $1,700. The jury found a verdict for $763.89, which, allowing for the running of interest till the trial,--a period of nearly four years and a half,--would indicate a disallowance of about half of the claim, and the allowance of a set-off for rent of a house during the same period. The basis of recovery having been fixed by the excess in value of the Toledo property over the mortgage, the jury must have found that it was not taken as worth $3,500. Defendant denied the whole arrangement, and claimed he took the property in satisfaction of the mortgage.

The errors assigned by defendant, who complains of the judgment below, relate chiefly to matters of evidence, and to some parts of the charge. Plaintiff was allowed to give secondary evidence of the contents of a letter from defendant to herself, after proving that she received it by mail from Toledo, and after reading it laid it by in a book to preserve it; and that afterwards, upon looking for it, the letter could not be found, in spite of diligent search. The contents were proved by plaintiff, and subsequently a witness named Vreeland testified concerning the contents of a letter shown to him by plaintiff's husband, which is sworn to by the husband to have been the same letter. All this testimony was admissible, inasmuch as a proper proof of loss was made out.

Defendant complains of the refusal of the court to let him introduce his letter-book to show what letters he wrote to defendant's husband, defendant denying that he wrote any letter to plaintiff. Two of these letters relating to their mutual dealings were admitted. As the bill of exceptions does not show the purport of the excluded copies, it is impossible for us to determine how far they would have been...