Sutton v. Rowley

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CAMPBELL, J.
• Citation: Sutton v. Rowley, 44 Mich. 112, 6 N. W. 216 (Mich. 1880)
• Decision Date: 23 June 1880
• Parties: SUTTON and others v. ROWLEY.

6 N.W. 216

44 Mich. 112

SUTTON and others v. ROWLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 23, 1880

There being nothing in the record in this action to indicate that the agreement referred to differed from any other parol contract for the conveyance of lands, it was void, and cannot be resorted to for any purpose.

Error to Hillsdale.

J.S Galloway, A. Dickerman and Geo. A. Knickerbocker, for plaintiffs in error.

E.J March and E.L. Koon, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL J.

Rowley presented and established before the commissioners appointed to determine claims against the estate of Robert B. Sutton deceased, a demand of $500 for superintending and completing certain hydraulic works. This claim was affirmed on appeal and is brought before us on error. The only questions insisted upon on the argument relate to an agreement between Sutton and Rowley to pay for the work by the conveyance of a lot of land. Several different propositions were presented and discussed, but we do not think it necessary to consider them. There is no claim that this agreement was in writing and there is nothing to indicate that it could be enforced as a parol agreement on account of facts taking it out of the operation of the statute of frauds. The case, therefore comes within the...