Stewart v. Jerome
Decision Date | 11 July 1888 |
Citation | 38 N.W. 895,71 Mich. 201 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | STEWART ET AL. v. JEROME. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; HENRY N. BREVOORT, Judge.
Assumpsit by Daniel Stewart and Andrew T. Stewart partners, doing business as Daniel Stewart & Son, against George Jerome, upon an oral promise by defendant to pay the debt of one Joseph H. Morris. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Larned & Larned, (D. A. Straker, of counsel,) for appellees.
The suit in this case was commenced by declaration which consisted of the common counts in assumpsit. The defendant demanded a bill of particulars, and one was served which consisted of several items from May 2 to June 5, 1884 of oats, amounting to $395.66, and a statement that the goods were sold and delivered to Joseph H. Morris for feed for his livery horses at his stables on Michigan Grand avenue, Detroit; that said Morris owed defendant $10,000, and to secure the same defendant held a chattel mortgage on Morris' horses, harnesses, and other property in said stables, dated June 4, 1884; that said mortgage included no goods or stock of Morris acquired by him after the date thereof, and that Morris purchased and had in his stables stock, goods, and property not covered by said mortgage to the amount of $4,000; and on or about June 20, 1884, said Morris absconded with intent to defraud his creditors; that said Jerome took possession of all of said horses, coup�s, carriages, harnesses, and other property, including stock and property not included in his mortgage, and more than sufficient to satisfy plaintiffs' said demand, which, with the mortgaged property, was liable to attachment; that of the above written account, all being past due and unpaid, $200 of the oats were at the time Morris absconded then in the stables, and not fed out, and were purchased fraudulently, and were repleviable by plaintiffs, on the ground that they were obtained by fraud by said Morris, and said plaintiffs intended to proceed to replevin said $200 worth of oats, and intended to proceed by attachment against the residue of the property taken by defendant to satisfy his mortgage, and not covered by it; and the defendant well knowing all the above premises, and in order to prevent said plaintiffs from enforcing payment of their just debt and lien by attachment and replevin, did promise and agree with said plaintiffs that if they would forbear to enforce their said claims he, said defendant, would assume and pay said debt of said plaintiffs, and, relying on said promises of defendant, did so forbear; and took no steps to replevin or attach or attempt collection of their debt, and have hitherto forborne until the commencement of this suit, relying on his, defendant's, promise to pay said debt. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Upon the trial of the cause the plaintiffs, against objections made by counsel for defendant that the proof offered was inadmissible under the pleadings, introduced evidence tending to prove the indebtedness of Morris to plaintiffs, the execution of the chattel mortgage by Morris to defendant, the departure of Morris, and the possession taken by defendant of the whole stock and property in the stable, and the promise of the defendant. The plaintiffs are copartners, composed of Daniel Stewart, the father, and his son, Andrew T. As soon as Daniel Stewart had learned that Morris had left the city, he went to the stables on Michigan Grand avenue, and found defendant's servants in possession, and one of them informed him that defendant wished to see him immediately, and took him in a buggy to the office of defendant, where he had a conversation with defendant as follows: He further testified that he did not replevin or attach because he relied upon Mr. Jerome paying him, and was satisfied he would. That he reported to his son the interview with Mr. Jerome, and he was not satisfied with it; and they both went the second day after to see Mr. Jerome, when nearly the same conversation was had as before, Mr. Jerome agreeing to pay them if they "stood quiet," and would wait six months, to which plaintiffs agreed, at the end of which time they called upon him, when he offered $200 in cash to settle the bill, or, if they would wait 10 months, he would pay the whole face of it. The plaintiffs then agreed to wait 10 months, and directed an entry to be made on their books so they would know when the 10 months was up. At the end of this time plaintiffs again called upon defendant for payment, and he was not yet ready; "complained that he had sold his business to Edmunds, but got very little or no money, and he was scarce of money." Later they called again, and the plaintiff Daniel Stewart testified to the conversation that then occurred as follows: The defendant introduced no testimony, and the plaintiffs recovered.
The defense to the action is placed upon two grounds First. That the promise of defendant is void under the statute which enacts that every special promise to answer for the debt, default, or misdoings of another person shall be void unless some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person by him thereunto lawfully authorized. Second. If not void, no recovery can be had upon such promise under the common counts in assumpsit. This clause of the statute of frauds has often come before this court for consideration. In Corkins v. Collins, 16 Mich. 478, the plaintiff sued Collins on a verbal promise to pay a board bill and money lent, due from one James Sykes. The consideration was the release of certain trunks supposed to be held for the debt. The defense was the statute of frauds. Mr. Justice CAMPBELL said: In Calkins v. Chandler, 36 Mich. 320, it was held that an agreement to extend the time of payment and forbear to sue a third person, who was plaintiff's debtor, was a sufficient consideration for defendants' promise to pay. And this was because the promise of defendants to pay the debt of such third person was at the same time, when paid, to apply on an indebtedness that was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial