McDonald v. Bewick

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GRAVES, C.J.
• Citation: McDonald v. Bewick, 51 Mich. 79, 16 N. W. 240 (Mich. 1883)
• Decision Date: 20 June 1883
• Parties: McDONALD v. BEWICK and others.

16 N.W. 240

51 Mich. 79

McDONALD v. BEWICK and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 20, 1883

As the writing made the basis of the action in this case was not a contract, but a mere offer to make a contract, with a statement of the terms, and was without mutuality or consideration to support it, the court properly directed a verdict for defendant.

Error to Alpena.

J.D Holmes, for plaintiff and appellant.

J.D Turnbull, for defendants.

GRAVES C.J.

The court committed no error in directing a verdict for defendants. The plaintiff bases his right to recover on this writing: "ALPENA, MICH., December 5, 1879. We agree to sell Malcolm McDonald one million feet of Norway in town 28 N., 8 E., on our lands along Alger Railroad; said Norway to be suitable for making square timber; and will make a contract with him, giving him the right to go on said lands and cut and remove said timber on payment for the same. The price of said Norway to be $1.50 per M. board measure, and said timber to be selected Norway. We do not guaranty any certain amount of timber on said lands that McDonald will take, but do say there is one million feet of good Norway and more. BERWICK, COMSTOCK & Co."

This instrument was not a contract. It was simply an offer to make one, with a statement of the terms. There was no mutuality. It was the act alone of the defendants, and it was not supported by any duty or obligation of the plaintiff, or of any other person, or by any form of consideration whatever, and there was no averment of acceptance by the plaintiff.

There is no appearance of a cause of action. The Governor etc., v. Petch, 28 Eng.Law & Eq. 470; Lees v. Whitcomb, 5 Bing. 34; Sykes v. Dixon, 9 Adol. & E. 693; James v. Williams, 5 Barn. & Adol. 1109; ...