Jennison v. Stone

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtCooley, J.
Citation33 Mich. 99
PartiesHiram Jennison v. Charles Stone and another
Decision Date02 November 1875

33 Mich. 99

Hiram Jennison
v.
Charles Stone and another

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 2, 1875


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.

OPINION

Cooley, J.

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 [33 Mich. 100] 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 contract was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...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. Cas. No. 8589; Lampkins v. R. Co., 8 So., 530......
  • Stefanac v. Cranbrook Educational Community, Docket No. 82317
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 5, 1990
    ...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 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 the lea......
  • Hammond Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 24, 1962
    ...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. 361 (1932)......
  • Shepard v. Shepard
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 2, 1875
    ...not forbidden. We see no objection whatever to a joinder in such a case. The objection we have noticed being removed, the plaintiffs in [33 Mich. 99] error were entitled to recover upon the facts found, and the result is that the judgment below must be reversed, and one entered for the plai......
4 cases
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...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. Cas. No. 8589; Lampkins v. R. Co., 8 So., 530......
  • Stefanac v. Cranbrook Educational Community, Docket No. 82317
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 5, 1990
    ...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 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 the lea......
  • Hammond Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 24, 1962
    ...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. 361 (1932)......
  • Shepard v. Shepard
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 2, 1875
    ...not forbidden. We see no objection whatever to a joinder in such a case. The objection we have noticed being removed, the plaintiffs in [33 Mich. 99] error were entitled to recover upon the facts found, and the result is that the judgment below must be reversed, and one entered for the plai......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT