Kroll v. Diamond Match Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Kroll v. Diamond Match Co.

63 N.W. 983, 106 Mich. 127, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 956

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 N.W. 983 (Kroll v. Diamond Match Co.) 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

Kroll v. Diamond Match Co., 63 N.W. 983, 106 Mich. 127, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 956 (Mich. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

The declaration in this case sets forth that the defendant offered and proposed in writing to pay plaintiff $2,000 upon receipt of a quitclaim deed of certain lands; that he then and there accepted said proposal, and afterwards, on a date mentioned, while said proposal was unrevoked and in full force, he tendered to defendant a proper and sufficient quitclaim deed, but that it refused to pay. The defendant interposed a general 'demurrer.

The only question before us is, was it necessary to allege an acceptance in writing? That question is settled in this State against the defendant. Dayton v. Williams, 2 Doug. 31; Harris Photographic Supply Co. v. Fisher, 81 Mich. 136. Were it conceded that the acceptance rested in parol, and that the tender of the deed was made pursuant to said contract, we could dispose of the [128]*128case upon its merits. Thompson v. Marley, 102 Mich. 476. But we do not find this concession in plaintiff’s brief. It must therefore be reserved for determination upon the evidence.

The case must be reversed,'and remanded to the court below, where the defendant will be given the usual time to plead.

McGrath, C. J., Montgomery and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

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

Grant, J.

The declaration in this case sets forth that the defendant offered and proposed in writing to pay plaintiff $2,000 upon receipt of a quitclaim deed of certain lands; that he then and there accepted said proposal, and afterwards, on a date mentioned, while said proposal was unrevoked and in full force, he tendered to defendant a proper and sufficient quitclaim deed, but that it refused to pay. The defendant interposed a general 'demurrer.

The only question before us is, was it necessary to allege an acceptance in writing? That question is settled in this State against the defendant. Dayton v. Williams, 2 Doug. 31; Harris Photographic Supply Co. v. Fisher, 81 Mich. 136. Were it conceded that the acceptance rested in parol, and that the tender of the deed was made pursuant to said contract, we could dispose of the [128]*128case upon its merits. Thompson v. Marley, 102 Mich. 476. But we do not find this concession in plaintiff’s brief. It must therefore be reserved for determination upon the evidence.

The case must be reversed,'and remanded to the court below, where the defendant will be given the usual time to plead.

McGrath, C. J., Montgomery and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.W. 983, 106 Mich. 127, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kroll-v-diamond-match-co-mich-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack