Sickels v. Anderson
Decision Date | 28 October 1886 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | SICKELS and another v. ANDERSON. |
Error to Clinton.
A.D Griswold and S.D. Daboll, for defendant and appellant Anderson.
If the contract was to be performed on the happening of a future event, that event must fully happen. Detroit, etc., R Co. v. Starnes, 38 Mich. 698. The question of reasonable time should have been left to the jury. Byram v Gordon, 11 Mich. 531; Stange v. Wilson, 17 Mich. 342; Coon v. Spaulding, 47 Mich. 162; S.C. 10 N.W. 183. The court should, if it directed a verdict at all, have instructed them to find for the defendant. Druse v. Wheeler, 26 Mich. 195; Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458.
A.W. Scoville and Spaulding & Barker, for plaintiffs, Sickels and another.
The road was built substantially 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. 888. The question of reasonable time is not in the case. The parties fixed their own time of payment, and their contract controls. Abell v. Munson, 18 Mich. 306; Amer.Law Reg. January, 1886, p. 98, note; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, supra.
Plaintiff sued defendant upon the following obligation:
The undisputed evidence shows that a railroad company, known as the Owosso & Northwestern Railroad, was projecting and working upon a line of road from Owosso to Elsie, in Clinton county. Both Anderson and Wilson were living in Elsie, and desirous of having said road completed. They gave, previous to the date of the above agreement, a donation of $50 to said road, which gift was evidenced in a writing of some kind, which does not appear in the record. The Owosso & Northwestern Railroad was indebted to the plaintiffs for ties furnished said road, and, in part payment of such indebtedness, Anderson and Wilson gave the obligation sued upon to plaintiffs, the first agreement being canceled and destroyed.
In 1872 the Owosso & Northwestern Railroad quit work upon the road-bed, and nothing more was done upon the same until 1883, when the Toledo & Ann Arbor Railroad Company went to work upon the old road-bed, completing the road, so that cars ran between Owosso and Elsie in the spring of 1884. The road completed by the new company did not run all the way upon the old line, but ran in a direct and shorter route, using some of the old road-bed.
After the Owosso & Northwestern road apparently abandoned the work, a portion of the road-bed during the 11 years was plowed up and cultivated by farmers along the line. There is no proof that the Owosso & Northwestern road had any existence, as a company, after 1872, or that there was any meeting of the directors. There is no showing by what right or authority the Toledo & Ann Arbor Company used this road-bed, except the testimony of a witness, who swears that, when this company first began work upon the road-bed, the old company claimed the line, and that he afterwards heard they had sold out to the Toledo & Ann Arbor road. Thereupon the court directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered against the defendant for $53.53.
The court said to the jury:
We think the court erred. The contract sued upon in this case grew out of a donation to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jordan v. Newton
... ... be held liable, it must be shown the conditions have been ... performed. Brown v. Dibble's Estate, 65 Mich ... 520, 32 N.W. 656; Sickels v. Anderson, 63 Mich. 421, ... 30 N.W. 78; Railway Co. v. Richards, 90 Mich. 577, ... 51 N.W. 680; Thornton v. Railroad Co. (Ala.) 4 ... South ... ...
-
Bucklen v. Johnson
... ... 260, 7 N.E ... 881; Plank's Tavern Co. v. Burkhard, 87 ... Mich. 182, 49 N.W. 562; M. E. Church v ... Sweny, 85 Iowa 627, 52 N.W. 546; Sickels v ... Anderson, 63 Mich. 421, 30 N.W. 78. Many additional ... authorities might be cited, but it is unnecessary ... If ... ...
-
Bucklen v. Johnson
...Ind. 260, 7 N. E. 881;Tavern Co. v. Burkhard, 49 N. W. 562, 87 Mich. 182;First M. E. Church v. Sweny (Iowa) 52 N. W. 546;Sickels v. Anderson, 63 Mich. 421, 30 N. W. 78. Many authorities might be cited, but it is unnecessary. If appellants have any right of action here, it rests solely upon ......
- Sterner v. Hodgson