Birdsall v. Birdsall

Michigan Supreme Court

Birdsall v. Birdsall

77 N.W. 1114, 118 Mich. 658, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1067

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 N.W. 1114 (Birdsall v. Birdsall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Birdsall v. Birdsall, 77 N.W. 1114, 118 Mich. 658, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1067 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). After the date of this alleged agreement, complainant asked defendant for a lease for six years. She refused, and on April 10, 1894, made a new lease for three years. This [662]*662lease is in the usual form, and contains no reference whatever to the alleged agreement. It provided that the death of the defendant should terminate the lease. She was then over 70 years of age, and testified that she did not anticipate that she should live long, and feared that the planting of the orchard would make trouble among her sons. We find it unnecessary to determine whether the proofs on the part'of the complainant show a definite, complete, and certain contract, capable of enforcement. The proofs of the respective parties are in direct conflict, and the conclusion reached by the circuit judge depends upon the credibility to be given to the witnesses. The circuit judge saw them, heard their testimony, and made a finding of facts. There was ample evidence on the part of the defendant to sustain the finding. We see no reason to discredit the conclusion reached by the circuit judge. A detail of the evidence would be profitless, and would neither serve any good purpose nor form any precedent in other cases. We think the judge reached the correct conclusion, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). After the date of this alleged agreement, complainant asked defendant for a lease for six years. She refused, and on April 10, 1894, made a new lease for three years. This [662]*662lease is in the usual form, and contains no reference whatever to the alleged agreement. It provided that the death of the defendant should terminate the lease. She was then over 70 years of age, and testified that she did not anticipate that she should live long, and feared that the planting of the orchard would make trouble among her sons. We find it unnecessary to determine whether the proofs on the part'of the complainant show a definite, complete, and certain contract, capable of enforcement. The proofs of the respective parties are in direct conflict, and the conclusion reached by the circuit judge depends upon the credibility to be given to the witnesses. The circuit judge saw them, heard their testimony, and made a finding of facts. There was ample evidence on the part of the defendant to sustain the finding. We see no reason to discredit the conclusion reached by the circuit judge. A detail of the evidence would be profitless, and would neither serve any good purpose nor form any precedent in other cases. We think the judge reached the correct conclusion, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 N.W. 1114, 118 Mich. 658, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birdsall-v-birdsall-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack