Mace v. Page
| Decision Date | 02 November 1875 |
| Citation | 33 Mich. 38 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Wendell A Mace and another v. Alverson W. Page |
Heard October 21, 1875
Error to Lenawee Circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
A. L Millard, for plaintiffs in error.
Walker & Weaver, for defendant in error.
An action of assumpsit was commenced by William D. Page against the plaintiffs in error, and he dying, his death was suggested and his son and administrator was allowed to carry on the case.
When the Chicago & Canada Southern Railroad was being located through the village of Morenci, in Lenawee county, many of the village people felt an interest and were active in regard to the site to be fixed for the road, and also in regard to the situation of a projected depot. It would seem that there was some competition among the people on the subject, and that the plaintiffs in error acted as a committee to aid in bringing about a particular location of the road and depot and solicited funds to further the general object. They seem to have carried on various negotiations, but the record does not afford much light as to their course of proceeding. This suit originated in one of these transactions.
The declaration sets up in different special counts, and with variations more or less important, certain express joint promises of the plaintiffs in error to William D. Page to pay him given sums of money in consideration of his deeding to them certain land to be by them turned over to one Packer for land he was to convey to the railroad company for a depot.
The general counts were also added. The general issue being pleaded, the cause was tried before a jury and a verdict found for defendant in error for two hundred and forty-one dollars and seventy-eight cents. The case was subsequently removed here and is now before us on writ of error and bill of exceptions. Some questions are raised in regard to the admission of evidence, and others upon rulings in charging and refusing to charge. An examination of the record, which contains all the evidence, enables us to dispose of the cause very briefly, and without touching several of the points discussed at the bar. In deciding we shall only refer to two features of the record.
First. The evidence had no tendency to prove the plaintiffs in error liable under the general counts. On the contrary, the theory of the plaintiff below as to his ground of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bagnell Timber Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co.
...v. Staudart, 1 Ill.App. 288; Faulkner v. Faulkner, 73 Mo. 327; Railroad v. Sullivan, 25 Ga. 228; College v. Hendley, 49 Cal. 347; Mace v. Page, 33 Mich. 38; Thompson Stetson, 15 Neb. 112; Wycoff v. Loan & Trust Co., 11 N.Y.S. 423; Snell v. DeLand, 43 Ill. 323; O'Neal v. Boone, 82 Ill. 589; ......
-
Beaudette v. Cavedon
...variance. 31 Cyc. 707. 13 C. J. 755, cites many cases, of which we have examined Jones v. Engelhardt, 78 Ala. 505 (common counts); Mace v. Page, 33 Mich. 38 (common counts); Spann v. Grant, 83 Miss. 19, 35 So. 217 (common counts); Goodale v. Page, 92 S. C. 413, 75 S. E. 700 (common counts);......
-
Beekman v. Sylvester
... ... sustain his judgment, even against Carney, as he was entitled ... to no judgment, if not against all. Mace v. Page, 33 ... Mich. 38; Winslow v. Herrick, 9 Mich. 380; ... Ballow v. Hill, 23 Mich. 60; Larkin v ... Butterfield, 29 Mich. 254; Anderson v ... ...
-
Munn v. Haynes
...as to the parties not defaulted was held to invalidate a judgment against those defaulters. The same doctrine is illustrated in Mace v. Page, 33 Mich. 38; Larkin Butterfield, 29 Mich. 254; Wellover v. Soule, 30 Mich. 481; Lee v. Bolles, 20 Mich. 46; Ballou v. Hill, 23 Mich. 60; Cruikshank v......