Jennison v. Stone
| Decision Date | 02 November 1875 |
| Citation | 33 Mich. 99 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hiram Jennison v. Charles Stone and another |
Heard November 2, 1875
Case made from Kent Circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Norris Blair & Stone, for plaintiff.
Taggart Allen & Wolcott, for defendants.
The suit between these parties is upon a promissory note given by the defendants in closing up with plaintiff a contract they had made with one Newton for the purchase of lands, and which had been assigned to the plaintiff. Two defenses were made to the note. First, That by reason of defects in Newton's title at the time the contract was entered into, they were deprived of the occupation of the land, and of the opportunity to take timber from it as they desired, for a considerable period, until the title was perfected; and second, that there was included in the note a sum for interest on the last installment of the land contract, when the contract called for none.
The first defense was properly overruled. It appears by the contract that the purchasers were to keep the premises "in as good condition" as they were at the date of the contract, until by their payments they became entitled to a deed; and this would preclude their taking off timber until that time. The damages they claimed were for loss of the opportunity to lumber upon the premises prior to that period, and when, consequently, there could have been no legal damages. A man cannot be damnified by being deprived of the opportunity of doing what he has no right to do.
The second defense seems to have been rejected on the ground that the note sued upon was given on a settlement between the parties, and after plaintiff had refused to settle with defendants except for the amount promised to be paid by it. If the facts were that this note was given in settlement of conflicting claims of these parties, then, under the previous rulings of this court, we should not inquire into the equities, even though it should be asserted or made to appear that something was included in it which the plaintiff had no lawful right to. Moore v. Detroit Locomotive Works 14 Mich. 266. But if defendants should be able to show that the facts were as they claim, this would not be such a case. They offered to show that when the note was given they expressly claimed and insisted that the sum included therein as interest on the last installment of the land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stefanac v. Cranbrook Educational Community
...Contracts, 2d, Sec. 214, p. 134, illustration 5.See also Baker v. Chicago Fire & Burglary Detection, Inc., n. 39 supra.62 Jennison v. Stone, 33 Mich. 99, 101 (1875).63 Maltz v. Fletcher, 52 Mich. 484, 18 N.W. 228 (1884).Hagan v. Moch, 249 Mich. 511, 517, 229 N.W. 629 (1930) ("[A]nd though t......
-
City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
... ... compromise. There was no mutuality of agreement or ... understanding necessary to a compromise. ( Oil Co. v ... Wilson, 56 S.W. 429; Jennison v. Stone, 33 ... Mich. 99; Barnawell v. Threadgill, 56 N. C., 50; ... Norris v. Slaughter, 3 Greene, 116; Luce v. Ins ... Co., 15 Fed ... ...
-
Hammond Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
...however, that for purposes of this motion the pertinent principles of the laws of both jurisdictions are the same. Compare Jennison v. Stone, 33 Mich. 99, 101 (1875), and Stadler v. Ciprian, 265 Mich. 252, 262, 251 N.W. 404, 407 (1933), with Schuttinger v. Woodruff, 259 N.Y. 212, 181 N.E. 3......
- Shepard v. Shepard