Butterfield v. Seligman

Michigan Supreme Court

Butterfield v. Seligman

17 Mich. 95, 1868 Mich. LEXIS 44

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 13, 1868

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 17 Mich. 95 (Butterfield v. Seligman) 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

Butterfield v. Seligman, 17 Mich. 95, 1868 Mich. LEXIS 44 (Mich. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell J.

Plaintiff below sued upon the common counts, and on the trial was allowed to recover upon proof of a special written agreement, reciting the receipt of $600 as payment for certain lands, which defendant agreed to convey if he could make good title, and if he could not make good title, then he was to return to plaintiff $625.

This was an attempt to recover for the breach of an express contract, and there is no principle which can allow its introduction in evidence for the purpose of recovering what it agrees to pay, and yet permit it to be treated as thrown out of the case after it has served its purpose. If there was any cause of action, it was upon the writing which the parties had seen fit to make the evidence of their contract, and the case does not come within any of the exceptions to the rule requiring such agreements to be declared on specially. The contract was not one where nothing remained to be done except paying the price for some work, or service, or commodity furnished under it. The condition was one sided, and claimed to have been broken, and the sum recoverable was nothing more nor less than stipulated damages.

[99]*99The action was improperly brought, and the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted. The other questions become immaterial as the issue stands.

Cooley Oh. J. and Graves J. concurred. Christianoy J. did not sit.

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

Campbell J.

Plaintiff below sued upon the common counts, and on the trial was allowed to recover upon proof of a special written agreement, reciting the receipt of $600 as payment for certain lands, which defendant agreed to convey if he could make good title, and if he could not make good title, then he was to return to plaintiff $625.

This was an attempt to recover for the breach of an express contract, and there is no principle which can allow its introduction in evidence for the purpose of recovering what it agrees to pay, and yet permit it to be treated as thrown out of the case after it has served its purpose. If there was any cause of action, it was upon the writing which the parties had seen fit to make the evidence of their contract, and the case does not come within any of the exceptions to the rule requiring such agreements to be declared on specially. The contract was not one where nothing remained to be done except paying the price for some work, or service, or commodity furnished under it. The condition was one sided, and claimed to have been broken, and the sum recoverable was nothing more nor less than stipulated damages.

[99]*99The action was improperly brought, and the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted. The other questions become immaterial as the issue stands.

Cooley Oh. J. and Graves J. concurred. Christianoy J. did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Mich. 95, 1868 Mich. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butterfield-v-seligman-mich-1868.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack