Ellis v. Maxson

Michigan Supreme Court

Ellis v. Maxson

19 Mich. 186, 1869 Mich. LEXIS 42

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 12, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 19 Mich. 186 (Ellis v. Maxson) 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

Ellis v. Maxson, 19 Mich. 186, 1869 Mich. LEXIS 42 (Mich. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell J.

The only error assigned in this cause is based upon the admission of parol proof of a contract for the sale of lands in the State of Illinois, there being no evidence to show what the law of that State required to make land contracts valid.

The evidence was properly admitted. A parol contract to sell lands was good at common law. It is only' made [187]*187void by statute. If we should make auy presumption, iu the absence of evidence, as to the provisions of any foreign laws, it would be that they conform in substance to the general principles of the common law. How universally we could make such a presumption it is not necessary to- consider now. We certainly cannot presume that the Legislature of another State has adopted all of our statutes, and therefore we must have proof before we can know that they have passed any statute. This question was decided in Kermott v. Ayer 11 Mich. R. 181. See also, Whitford v. The Panama R. R. Co. 23 N. Y. 465, 468.

If the contract in question was required by the statutes of Illinois to be in writing, the statutes should have been introduced.—People v. Lambert 5 Mich. R. 349. In the absence of such proof, it was properly assumed to be valid.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Cooley Oh. J. and Ohristianoy J. concurred. Graves J. did not sit in this case.

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

Campbell J.

The only error assigned in this cause is based upon the admission of parol proof of a contract for the sale of lands in the State of Illinois, there being no evidence to show what the law of that State required to make land contracts valid.

The evidence was properly admitted. A parol contract to sell lands was good at common law. It is only' made [187]*187void by statute. If we should make auy presumption, iu the absence of evidence, as to the provisions of any foreign laws, it would be that they conform in substance to the general principles of the common law. How universally we could make such a presumption it is not necessary to- consider now. We certainly cannot presume that the Legislature of another State has adopted all of our statutes, and therefore we must have proof before we can know that they have passed any statute. This question was decided in Kermott v. Ayer 11 Mich. R. 181. See also, Whitford v. The Panama R. R. Co. 23 N. Y. 465, 468.

If the contract in question was required by the statutes of Illinois to be in writing, the statutes should have been introduced.—People v. Lambert 5 Mich. R. 349. In the absence of such proof, it was properly assumed to be valid.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Cooley Oh. J. and Ohristianoy J. concurred. Graves J. did not sit in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Mich. 186, 1869 Mich. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-maxson-mich-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack