McDonald v. Bewick

16 N.W. 240, 51 Mich. 79, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 519
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 20, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 16 N.W. 240 (McDonald v. Bewick) 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
McDonald v. Bewick, 16 N.W. 240, 51 Mich. 79, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 519 (Mich. 1883).

Opinion

Graves, C. J.

The court committed no error in directing a verdict for defendants. The plaintiff bases his right to recover on this writing:

[80]*80AlpeNA, Mich., Dec. 5, 1879.
•We agree to sell Malcolm McDonald one million feet of Norway, in town 28 N., 8 E., on our lands along Alger E. E.; said Norway to be suitable for making square timber; and will make a contract with him, giving him the right to go on said lands and cut and remove said timber on payment for the same.
The price of said Norway to be $1.50 per M. board measure, and said timber to be selected Norway. "We do not guaranty any certain amount of timber on said lands that McDonald will take, but do say there is one million feet of good Norway, and more.
BewioK, CoMstooK & Co.”

This instrument was not a contract. It was simply an. offer to make one, with a statement of the terms. There was no mutuality. It was the act alone of the defendants, and it was not supported by any duty or obligation of the plaintiff, or of any other person, or by any form of consideration whatever, and there was no averment of acceptance by the plaintiff. There is no appearance of a cause of action. The Governor, Guardians, &c. of the Poor of Kingston-upon-Hull v. Petch 28 E. L. & E. 470; Lees v. Whitcomb 5 Bing. 34; Sykes v. Dixon 9 A. & E. 693; James v. Williams 5 B. & Ad. 1109 ; Tucker v. Woods 12 Johns. 190; Quick v. Wheeler 78 N. Y. 300.

It is needless to inquire concerning other objections.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Ruckman v. Hay
114 S.E. 514 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)
Willebrandt v. Sisters of Mercy
152 N.W. 85 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Hollingshead v. Morris
137 N.W. 527 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
National Fire Alarm Co. v. City of Portland
117 P. 285 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Elliott v. Delaney
116 S.W. 494 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Bailey v. Leishman
89 P. 78 (Utah Supreme Court, 1907)
Jackson v. Sessions
67 N.W. 315 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Topliff v. McKendree
50 N.W. 109 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1891)
Ide v. Leiser
10 Mont. 5 (Montana Supreme Court, 1890)
Rayburn v. Comstock
45 N.W. 382 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1890)
Wiley v. San Pedro & Canon del Agua Co.
4 N.M. 343 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1889)
Wilkinson v. Heavenrich
26 N.W. 139 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 N.W. 240, 51 Mich. 79, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-bewick-mich-1883.