Michigan Midland & Canada Railroad Co. v. Bacon
| Decision Date | 11 April 1876 |
| Citation | 33 Mich. 466 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Michigan Midland & Canada Railroad Company v. Thaddeus W. Bacon |
Submitted on Briefs January 19, 1876
Error to St. Clair Circuit.
The instrument sued upon in this case reads as follows:
(Signed) "T. W. Bacon."
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Atkinson Bros., for plaintiff in error.
Hoyt Post and Ashley Pond, for defendant in error.
This case in its main features resembles and must be governed by Stevens v. Corbitt, supra, p. 458. It is further insisted in this case that the promise was made to the Michigan Midland Railroad Company, which never finished the road or opened it for traffic. That company, after the contract in this case was made, commenced the construction of the road, but being unable to complete the same, it made an assignment in November, 1873, to plaintiff in error, of that portion of the road referred to in the agreement of Bacon together with all its franchises and property of, in and to said portion of the road, and a further assignment of the agreement sued upon was afterwards made. The plaintiff in error, therefore, became the successor and assignee in that portion of the Michigan Midland Railroad Company's road and franchises, including the agreement in question. Bacon promised to pay that company, its successors or assigns, and we know of no legal impediment in the way of enforcing the agreement which he made. From a reading of his agreement it would appear to have been a matter of small importance to him what corporation built the road and opened it for traffic, if it was only built and opened. It was the building and opening which was considered the essence of the agreement.
It is also suggested that at the time the agreement was obtained the road was surveyed and located about half a mile from defendant's farm, and that he said, at the time the note was given, he would aid in building the road on that account but that the road was afterwards changed and built across his premises, which was a damage to him. There undoubtedly might be such a change made in the location of the line of a road as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nebraska Chicory Company v. Lednicky
...... Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia,. which hold to this ... (Mass.) 565; Michigan & C. M. R. Co. v. Bacon, 33. Mich. 466; Red Wing Hotel Co. v. Friedrich, 26 Minn. ......
-
Nebraska Chicory Co. of Schuyler, Neb., v. Lednicky
...Co. v. Dummer, 40 Me. 172, 63 Am. Dec. 654;Railroad Co. v. Palmer, 34 Me. 366;Thompson v. Page, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 565;Michigan Midland, etc., R. Co. v. Bacon, 33 Mich. 466;Red Wing Hotel Co. v. Friedrich, 26 Minn. 112, 1 N. W. 827;Ashuelot Boot, etc., Co. v. Hoit, 56 N. H. 548; Railroad Co. v......
-
Jordan v. Newton
...are cases in this state involving litigation in relation to notes given in contemplation of the construction of railroads: Railroad Co. v. Bacon, 33 Mich. 466; Tower Railway Co., 34 Mich. 328; Stowell v. Stowell, 45 Mich. 364, 8 N.W. 70; Railroad Co. v. King, 68 Mich. 111, 35 N.W. 705; Gard......
-
Sickels v. Anderson
...on the old line. If the charge affects the defendant at all, it is presumably to his advantage. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Bacon, 33 Mich. 466;Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 55 Mich. 456;S.C. 21 N.W.Rep. 888. The question of reasonable time is not in the case. The parties fixed their own t......