Paine v. Swift

Michigan Supreme Court

Paine v. Swift

239 N.W. 895, 256 Mich. 453, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 716

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 4, 1932

DocketDocket No. 36, Calendar No. 35,593.

StatusPublished

This text of 239 N.W. 895 (Paine v. Swift) 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

Paine v. Swift, 239 N.W. 895, 256 Mich. 453, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 716 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Fead, J.

In writing, plaintiff sold to defendants the right to sell hot tamales and tamale steamers in Wayne county for one year for $900. Swift gave her a check for $600, postdated four days. The check was not paid when due, and Swift notified plaintiff he would not proceed with the transaction.

*454 Plaintiff brought this suit to recover on the check and the additional $300 under the contract. The case was tried before the court without a jury. There were no formal findings or exceptions, under the then prevailing practice, and the only question here is whether there was any evidence to sustain the judgment.

The import of Swift’s testimony, taken without objection, is that the check was postdated to enable him to investigate before the contract should become effective. On investigation, he failed to find business where plaintiff claimed it was, and refused to consummate the sale. This testimony sustains the judgment for defendants, and it is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Fead, J.

In writing, plaintiff sold to defendants the right to sell hot tamales and tamale steamers in Wayne county for one year for $900. Swift gave her a check for $600, postdated four days. The check was not paid when due, and Swift notified plaintiff he would not proceed with the transaction.

*454 Plaintiff brought this suit to recover on the check and the additional $300 under the contract. The case was tried before the court without a jury. There were no formal findings or exceptions, under the then prevailing practice, and the only question here is whether there was any evidence to sustain the judgment.

The import of Swift’s testimony, taken without objection, is that the check was postdated to enable him to investigate before the contract should become effective. On investigation, he failed to find business where plaintiff claimed it was, and refused to consummate the sale. This testimony sustains the judgment for defendants, and it is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 N.W. 895, 256 Mich. 453, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-v-swift-mich-1932.