Stevens v. Corbitt
Decision Date | 11 April 1876 |
Citation | 33 Mich. 458 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | William H. Stevens v. Jeffrey Corbitt. [1] |
Heard January 12, 1876
Error to Montcalm Circuit.
Judgment reversed, and affirmed as to the residue, to recovered his costs in this court.
M. C Palmer and Lemuel Clute, for plaintiff in error, argued that the declaration averred a promise based on an executed consideration, and that to support a promise grounded on a past consideration it must appear that the consideration moved at the request of the promisor: Comstock v Smith, 7 Johns. 87; Parker v. Crane, 6 Wend 647; and a mere voluntary courtesy to the defendant will not support an after-made promise: 1 Smith's L. C., 265-7.
Notwithstanding the words "value received," it was competent to show there was in fact no consideration: Osgood v. Bringolf, 32 Iowa 265; Jerome v. Whitney, 7 Johns. 321; Colbath v. Jones, 28 Mich. 280; People v. Howell, 4 Johns. 226; Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns. 145.
While a promise to pay a railroad company a specified sum of money on condition of its building a certain road in a specified time, may in some cases, on performance of the condition, be clothed with a valid consideration which related back to the promise and thereby became a valid and binding contract, it must be made to appear not only that the offer made by the promise was accepted by performance, but also that the performance was in reliance upon the promise; and the acceptance and performance must be by the promisee.
If the contract be treated as a subscription, it must be shown the road was constructed by the promisee in reliance on the promise: People v. Taylor, 2 Mich. 253; Underwood v. Waldron, 12 Mich. 73; and the declaration should have averred the promise to be to give so much to build the road, and that the offer was accepted, and the road built relying on the offer: Utica, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brinkerhoff, 21 Wend. 141.
George A. Smith and Blanchard & Bell, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error executed and delivered an instrument in writing, of which the following is a copy.
This agreement was afterwards properly assigned to the defendant in error, who commenced an action in March, 1875, to recover the amount claimed to be due thereon.
The court found that H. H. Smith, in July, 1872, was superintending the D., L. & L. M. R. R. Co., and was the active business man in building the Ionia, Stanton & Northern Railroad, and was president of both roads; that all the terms and conditions of the agreement, as to the time, manner, etc., of building the road, had been fulfilled, and that trains were running regularly over it to and from Stanton to the junction and Ionia station about the 28th of April, 1873. Judgment was rendered in favor of Corbitt for the principal, with interest thereon from April 28, 1873.
A question was raised as to the form and effect of the written assignment made by Smith; also, whether it could be said that trains were running regularly over the road while the engine had to back one way for want of a turn table at Stanton. We do not, however, find any error in the ruling of the court upon these, or some other questions that were raised, and we do not consider them of sufficient general importance to discuss them at present.
It was insisted that the organization of the company and building the road did not affect this agreement; that in order to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it must appear either that that there was some promise or agreement to build the road made to Stevens as a consideration for his promise, or that the company went on and built the road in reliance upon Stevens' promise to pay, and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sedalia, W. & S. R. Co. v. Smith
...would have been built, will not defeat an action upon defendant's promise upon the ground that it was without consideration. Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458. III. there was a sufficient consideration for the guaranty as an independent agreement between its signers and the plaintiff company......
-
Long v. Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen of Battle Creek
... ... the duty of the city unaided to make the desired improvement ... would not render an agreement to aid void. Stevens v ... Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458 ... But it ... is said such a proposition influences legislative action and ... is therefore void. There ... ...
-
Sickels v. Anderson
... ... 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 ... The ... road was ... ...
-
Conrad v. La Rue
... ... Underwood v. Waldron, ... 12 Mich. 73; Comstock v. Hond, 15 Mich. 237; ... Baker v. Johnston, 21 Mich. 319; Stevens v. Corbett, ... 33 Mich. 458; Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Bacon, Id ... 466; Tower v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 34 Mich. 328 ... And the judge was ... ...