Richards v. Fuller

Michigan Supreme Court

Richards v. Fuller

37 Mich. 161, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 227

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 20, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 37 Mich. 161 (Richards v. Fuller) 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

Richards v. Fuller, 37 Mich. 161, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 227 (Mich. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Marston, J.

Whether all the logs contracted for in this case were by the parties understood to be only the logs sold by Stauffer to Hale in the writing of January 5th, 1874, would seem to be immaterial. The written assignment made by Hale to Richards is not such a written contract between the parties as would preclude plaintiff in error from showing by parol the agreement actually entered into. This assignment was not complete in itself and did not purport to set up the entire agreement. It may have been made pursuant to the agreement entered into and in part performance thereof, and this was what defendant below offered to show. We are of opinion that this evidence was admissible and should have been received for the purpose for which it was offered. The case comes clearly within previous rulings of this court. See Phelps v. Whitaker, ante, p. 72, and cases there cited, and Trevidick v. Mumford, 31 Mich., 470; Sirrine v. Briggs, 31 Mich., 443; Rowe v. Wright, 12 Mich., 291; Bowker v. Johnson, 17 Mich., 42; Facey v. Otis, 11 Mich., 217.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Marston, J.

Whether all the logs contracted for in this case were by the parties understood to be only the logs sold by Stauffer to Hale in the writing of January 5th, 1874, would seem to be immaterial. The written assignment made by Hale to Richards is not such a written contract between the parties as would preclude plaintiff in error from showing by parol the agreement actually entered into. This assignment was not complete in itself and did not purport to set up the entire agreement. It may have been made pursuant to the agreement entered into and in part performance thereof, and this was what defendant below offered to show. We are of opinion that this evidence was admissible and should have been received for the purpose for which it was offered. The case comes clearly within previous rulings of this court. See Phelps v. Whitaker, ante, p. 72, and cases there cited, and Trevidick v. Mumford, 31 Mich., 470; Sirrine v. Briggs, 31 Mich., 443; Rowe v. Wright, 12 Mich., 291; Bowker v. Johnson, 17 Mich., 42; Facey v. Otis, 11 Mich., 217.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Mich. 161, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-fuller-mich-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack