Pratt v. Wickham

• Decision Date: 29 May 1903
• Citation: 133 Mich. 356,94 N.W. 1059
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PRATT v. WICKHAM.

94 N.W. 1059

133 Mich. 356

PRATT v. WICKHAM.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 29, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, Leelanau County; Frederick W. Mayne, Judge.

Action by William H. Pratt against Willard H. Wickham. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

W. H. Foster, for appellant.

Archie F. Bunting, for appellee.

CARPENTER J.

Plaintiff commenced this suit in replevin in justice court for a stag valued at $30. He prevailed in that court and in the circuit court, to which defendant appealed. The testimony of the plaintiff tended to prove that June 12, 1901, at defendant's farm, he and defendant agreed upon an exchange of property. The defendant agreed to exchange a bull owned by him for a buggy owned by plaintiff and a harness which plaintiff was to procure. The buggy was to be repaired and painted by plaintiff, and the harness was to be secondhand, and worth $6. The buggy and harness were to be left in the villages of Empire, Leelanau county, where defendant was to obtain them. At the time the contract of exchange was made, plaintiff changed the bull to a stag, and it was arranged that he should come and get the animal as soon as he was better. The plaintiff repaired the buggy bought the harness, and left them in the village of Empire as agreed. He notified the defendant of his action, and demanded the stag, and, on defendant's refusal to comply with his demand, brought this suit.

Defendant contended in the court below, and does here, that, under plaintiff's testimony, the court should have instructed the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that the title to the stag did not pass to the plaintiff. Defendant argues that the title to the stag did not pass, because the title to the buggy and harness to be transferred in exchange did not pass. Conceding that the title to the buggy and harness never passed to defendant it by no means follows that the title to the stag did not pass to the plaintiff. It is well settled that, in case of a sale, title may pass though the purchase price is not paid. See Mechem on Sales, �� 493 to 495. So, in case of exchange title to the property of one of the contracting parties may pass before he acquires title to the property for which it is exchanged. Mitchell v. Gile, 12 N.H. 390. The testimony in this suit warranted the jury in finding that plaintiff acquired title to the stag June 12, 1901.

When the defendant was being cross-examined by plaintiff's counsel, the following occurred: 'Q. Did you ever plead guilty * * * of stealing the Empire Lumber Company's grindstone? (Objected to as immaterial. Overruled. Exception.) A. Yes, sir.' Defendant's counsel seriously contends that this ruling was erroneous. The testimony was clearly admissible for the purpose of affecting the credibility of defendant. Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 170; Wilbur v. Flood, 16 Mich. 40...