Stanley v. Nye

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: [51 Mich. 233] COOLEY, J.
• Citation: Stanley v. Nye, 51 Mich. 232, 16 N. W. 387 (Mich. 1883)
• Decision Date: 02 July 1883
• Parties: STANLEY v. NYE.

16 N.W. 387

51 Mich. 232

STANLEY v. NYE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1883

As there was no evidence in this case on which plaintiff could recover, the court should have so instructed the jury, and the cause must be remanded for a new trial.

Error to Genesee.

Howard & Thayer, for plaintiff.

Geo. H & Chas. A. Durand and Isaac Marston, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY, J.

Assumpsit to recover the sum of $2,000, which is claimed as part of the purchase price of a city lot in Flint. The plaintiff's case is that in December, 1879, the parties entered into an arrangement for joint speculations in pork and grain in Chicago, and that, in pursuance of such arrangement, they bought options until in April, 1880, when they were found to have lost several thousand dollars. The parties then had a meeting to adjust matters between themselves, the result of which was that plaintiff deeded to defendant the city lot in question, which was worth $4,000, and defendant was to apply $2,000 in full settlement of the dealings between them, and pay plaintiff the further sum of $2,000 within a few days. It is this latter sum that plaintiff claims to recover in this suit. The transaction would thus appear to be a sale of the lot for $4,000, with short credit for half the purchase price. The defendant sought by the cross-examination of the plaintiff to show that he did not buy the lot, but received a deed of it by way of security of an agreed balance due him on their settlement. This balance the plaintiff stated was $4,000; and he also said that, at the time of the adjustment, he was willing to pay defendant all that was due him, and had no desire to cheat him out of anything. He also admitted that, when the deed was delivered defendant gave him back a writing agreeing to reconvey the property in one year or two years.

The following questions and answers then appear in the record:

"Question. This property--now this conveyance was really given with that object in view--to secure him--was it not, in part at least? Answer. Yes, sir; $2,000 of it. Q. The object was security, and upon your being able to repay him you should have it back again? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the object of the transaction? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the object of putting the agreement in writing, that he should convey back and discharge the obligation on your paying the amount? A. Yes, sir."

The plaintiff did not put the agreement in evidence, but he called as a witness the notary who drew the deed and agreement, and he gave evidence on cross-examination that the arrangement between the parties was that the lot was to be reconveyed to the...