Laidlaw v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Laidlaw v. City of Detroit

67 N.W. 967, 110 Mich. 1, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 624

DecidedJune 30, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 67 N.W. 967 (Laidlaw v. City of Detroit) 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

Laidlaw v. City of Detroit, 67 N.W. 967, 110 Mich. 1, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 624 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The instruction was correct. This was not' a duress of goods, as Astley v. Reynolds, 2 Strange, 915, cited in Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 570. Plaintiffs insisted that they had been legally excused for not completing their contract in time. The defendant insisted, through its proper board, that they had not. If they had a legal excuse, their right of action was complete, and none of their rights were in jeopardy by the demand of the board of public works. They accepted a release of the forfeiture for 17 days. They [3]*3chose, however, to permit the board, -to notify the common council that the contract was completed, and that they were entitled to their pay. Had they brought suit for the entire contract price, they might not have obtained the benefit of the .17 days which the board gave them. However this may be, there was no legal duress. The payment was made with the full knowledge of all the facts, and with the further knowledge that, under their own view of the case, they could then have brought suit against the defendant for the whole amount. Cicotte v. County of Wayne, 59 Mich. 509; Weston v. County of Luce, 102 Mich. 528.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The instruction was correct. This was not' a duress of goods, as Astley v. Reynolds, 2 Strange, 915, cited in Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 570. Plaintiffs insisted that they had been legally excused for not completing their contract in time. The defendant insisted, through its proper board, that they had not. If they had a legal excuse, their right of action was complete, and none of their rights were in jeopardy by the demand of the board of public works. They accepted a release of the forfeiture for 17 days. They [3]*3chose, however, to permit the board, -to notify the common council that the contract was completed, and that they were entitled to their pay. Had they brought suit for the entire contract price, they might not have obtained the benefit of the .17 days which the board gave them. However this may be, there was no legal duress. The payment was made with the full knowledge of all the facts, and with the further knowledge that, under their own view of the case, they could then have brought suit against the defendant for the whole amount. Cicotte v. County of Wayne, 59 Mich. 509; Weston v. County of Luce, 102 Mich. 528.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 N.W. 967, 110 Mich. 1, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laidlaw-v-city-of-detroit-mich-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack