Moore v. Mandlebaum
Decision Date | 09 July 1860 |
Citation | 8 Mich. 433 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | William P. Moore v. Simon Mandlebaum |
Heard June 1, 1860; June 2, 1860; June 5, 1860 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Error to Wayne circuit.
The action was upon the common counts in assumpsit. The plaintiff claimed to recover of defendant the sum of $ 13,000 as money had and received by the latter to the use of the plaintiff, on or about August 25, 1853, and interest thereon from that time, as part of the purchase price of certain lands in Houghton county hereinafter described, which it was admitted the plaintiff had owned on and previous to March 23, 1853.
On the trial before a jury, the plaintiff gave in evidence a power of attorney from himself to the defendant, authorizing the latter to sell and convey the said lands for such price as he should think proper; which power of attorney bore date March 23, 1853, and was shown to have been delivered at or about its date to defendant, who immediately sailed for England.
It further appeared that, while in England, the defendant entered into an agreement with Charles M. Wilkins, A. H. Sibley, and S. E. Low, which was produced and proved, and read in evidence, as follows:
[Signed by the parties.]
The counsel for said plaintiff then produced witnesses by whom he offered to prove:
That said Mandlebaum accepted said power of attorney, and agreed to act as such agent, and to use his best endeavors to sell and dispose of said lands as therein and thereby authorized, but was expressly instructed by the plaintiff not to sell said lands for less than Columbus C. Douglass should estimate them to be worth, and was at the time informed that said Douglass, by a written certificate, estimated them to be worth thirty thousand dollars; that after the signing of said memorandum of agreement in London, and before leaving there for Michigan, the said Wilkins, Sibley and Low placed in the hands of said Mandlebaum the sum of at least two thousand dollars, for the purpose and with the intent that he should, as mentioned in said agreement, obtain therewith the refusal of said lands for six months.
That the said defendant then returned to Detroit, where he arrived on or about the tenth day of May, in the year aforesaid, having said memorandum of agreement in his possession; that on that day he had an interview with the plaintiff in Detroit, in which interview he represented to the plaintiff that he had been in London; that he had there sold or agreed to sell to certain persons (not naming them), the said lands, for the sum of $ 22,000; that that was the most he could get for them owing to the fact that said Douglass's certificate and estimate of their value was not sufficiently full and explicit; that he had received from said persons $ 2,000 down as part payment for said lands, and was ready to pay over the same to the plaintiff; that by his arrangement made with said persons it was necessary for him to have an absolute deed for said lands, to enable him to consummate the bargain; that in order to insure to the plaintiff the payment of the remaining $ 20,000 by said persons within six months, he would himself execute back to said plaintiff a mortgage on said lands, conditioned to pay him the $ 20,000 within six months, and that unless said parties should pay said plaintiff said sum within that time, the said Mandlebaum would reconvey the lands to said plaintiff, and that said sum of $ 2,000 should, in that case, be forfeited.
And plaintiff's counsel further offered to show that said defendant did not in said interview, nor at any time thereafter, make known to plaintiff the fact that he had entered into such agreement, and that he had agreed with said Wilkins, Sibley and Low not to make said memorandum of agreement, or the contents thereof, known to said plaintiff.
And the plaintiff's counsel further offered to prove that said plaintiff, being deceived as to the true state of the facts as exhibited by said agreement and by the false representations made to him by said defendant, consented to accept said $ 2,000, and to give defendant an absolute deed of said lands for the purpose of enabling him to carry out and consummate the pretended arrangement with said persons in London; that said deed was executed, acknowledged and delivered accordingly, and that said Mandlebaum executed, acknowledged and delivered to said plaintiff a mortgage on all said lands, of the same date, conditioned for the payment of $ 20,000 in six months from its date; that no bond, note or other security was given by said Mandlebaum to which said mortgage was collateral.
That at the same time, at the request of said Mandlebaum, and as a part of the same transaction, said plaintiff gave to him the following receipt:
The plaintiff's counsel further offered to prove that immediately after the giving of said deed, mortgage and receipt, said Mandlebaum drew five drafts upon Wilkins Truefit & Co., London, to the amount of # 2,500, founded upon the said articles of agreement, and sent said drafts forward for collection, but all which drafts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Youmans v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield
...in this action were all captioned "ASSUMPSIT/MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED [.]" As our Supreme Court long ago recognized in Moore v. Mandlebaum , 8 Mich. 433, 448 (1860) [T]he action of assumpsit for money had and received is essentially an equitable action, founded upon all the equitable circumst......
-
Stephenson v. Golden
...which he has no concern. 9 C.J. p. 508; 8 Am.Jur. p. 989. The first and paramount duty of an agent is loyalty to his principal. Moore v. Mandlebaum, 8 Mich. 433;People v. Township Board of Overyssel, 11 Mich. 222;McNutt v. Dix, 83 Mich. 328, 47 N.W. 212,10 L.R.A. 660;McDonald v. Maltz, 94 M......
-
MacFadden v. Jenkins
...of Orleans, 9 Paige, 649; Terwilliger v. Brown, 44 N.Y. 240; Beaubien v. Poupard, Har. Ch. 206; Dwight v. Blackmar, 2 Mich. 330; Moore v. Mandelbaum, 8 Mich. 433; 4 Com. 429; Story, Eq. Jur. 300, 301, 322; Rowell v. Rowell (Wis.) 99 N.W. 473; Moore v. Carey (Ga.) 42 S.E. 259. Where the exec......
-
Janiszewski v. Behrmann, 8
...that the breadth of the obligation is measured by the breadth of the wrong, not the mutual assent of the parties. As we held in Moore v. Mandlebaum, 8 Mich. 433: 'We understand the law to be well settled, that the action of assumpsit for money had and received is essentially an equitable ac......