Winfield v. Dodge
| Decision Date | 19 January 1881 |
| Citation | 7 N.W. 906,45 Mich. 355 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | WINFIELD v. DODGE. |
A trade made on Sunday is void and conveys no title, and to ratify such transaction there must be something equivalent to a new contract on a week-day. Evidence in this case held not to show a valid new contract.
Error to Jackson.
Hewlett Bros. and Austin Blair, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas A. Wilson, for defendant in error.
The parties traded horses on Sunday. The exchange was even and there was immediate delivery. The plaintiff became dissatisfied and wishing to trade back went the next morning to the defendant's place and made several offers of money to induce him to do so, but he refused. After some bantering however the defendant gave the plaintiff five dollars and a tobacco pipe, for the purpose, as explained at the time, of averting ill feeling. The plaintiff then returned home, but wishing on further consideration to undo what had been done he again called on the defendant and peremptorily insisted on trading back and he offered to restore the money he had received and something more than the value of the pipe. The defendant refused to listen to any overture.
The plaintiff then brought replevin before a justice and obtained judgment and the defendant appealed. The circuit judge, on the close of the evidence, took the case from the jury and ordered a verdict for the defendant. This ruling went on the theory that the transaction on Monday amounted to a new contract by which the title became established in defendant and that no room for any other view existed. We think this was error. The case made by the evidence was not necessarily of the character assumed. The transaction on Sunday passed no title. As a trade it was void, and the evidence of what took place on Monday was not conclusive that there was anything more than an attempt to ratify and validate the Sunday negotiation; and of course a ratification of that trade was impossible; unless there was a new contract the plaintiff was entitled to reclaim his horse against the void negotiation. No new contract could be made without a mutual assent of the parties, and unless the plaintiff intended to make one the title was not affected by the occurrences subsequent to the transaction on Sunday, and whether there was such new contract was a question for the jury on the whole evidence under proper instructions.
The judgment must be reversed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. Lafon
... ... 576; Ladd ... v. Rogers, 11 Allen (Mass.) 211; Day v ... McAllister, 15 Gray (Mass.) 434; Tucker v ... Mowrey, 12 Mich. 379; Winfield v. Dodge, 45 ... Mich. 355, 40 Am. Rep. 476; Handy v. Publishing Co., ... 41 Minn. 188, 16 Am. St. Rep. 695. (7) In determining whether ... a ... ...
-
Johnston v. Milwaukee & Wyoming Investment Co.
...3 T. R. [Eng.] 422; Sowles v. Welden Nat. Bank, 61 Vt. 375; Melchoir v. McCarty, 31 Wis. 252; Brazee v. Bryant, 50 Mich. 136; Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355; Dodson v. Harris, 10 Ala. 566; Hauf v. Northwestern Masonic Aid Association, 76 Wis. 450; Poulton v. London & S.W. R. Co. L. R. 2 Q.......
-
Rott v. Goldman
...of that nature, the parties should be placed as near as may be in statu quo. Tucker v. Mowrey, 12 Mich. 378;Winfield v. Dodge, 45 Mich. 355, 7 N. W. 906,40 Am. Rep. 476;Brazee v. Bryant, 50 Mich. 136, 15 N. W. 49.’ We think the cases cited do not support the statement made. In the Tucker Ca......
-
Ward v. Ward
... ... 576; ... Shelton v. Marshall, 16 Tex. 344; Negley v ... Lindsay, 67 Pa. St. 217. See also Aspell v ... Hosbein, 98 Mich. 117; Winfield v. Dodge, 45 ... Mich. 355. There must be an express subsequent contract ... Bradley v. Rea, 14 Allen, 20, 103 Mass. 188; ... Reeves v. Butcher, ... ...
-
Sunday law in the nineteenth century.
...because made on a Sunday); Kinney v. McDermot, 8 N.W. 656, 657 (Iowa 1881) (holding a contract made on Sunday void); Winfield v. Dodge, 7 N.W. 906, 906 (Mich. 1881) (stating that horse trading was void and, rejecting ratification, allowing an action of (439) See, e.g., Thomas v. Hunter, 29 ......