Sherman v. Alberts

Michigan Supreme Court

Sherman v. Alberts

116 N.W. 1090, 153 Mich. 361, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1038

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1908

DocketDocket No. 80

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 116 N.W. 1090 (Sherman v. Alberts) 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

Sherman v. Alberts, 116 N.W. 1090, 153 Mich. 361, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1038 (Mich. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

(after stating the facts). The important question for our consideration is this: Was the agreement testified to by plaintiff a “ promise to answer for the debt * * * of another person,” required to be in writing by section 9515, 3 Comp. Laws? We think it was. From the terms of the agreement itself, and from the construction placed upon it by plaintiff, it must be inferred that the contractor, McGill, was his debtor for these goods. Being a debtor he could have been nothing less than the primary debtor. The obligation of the defendants was, then, that of a guarantor or surety. It was a promise to pay the debt of another and void because it was not in writing. While the language used differs somewhat from that in Butters Salt & Lumber Co. v. Vogel, 130 Mich. 33, it is ruled by that case. It follows that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for defendants. No other complaint demands discussion.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

Grant, C. J., and Hooker, Moore, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.

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

Carpenter, J.

(after stating the facts). The important question for our consideration is this: Was the agreement testified to by plaintiff a “ promise to answer for the debt * * * of another person,” required to be in writing by section 9515, 3 Comp. Laws? We think it was. From the terms of the agreement itself, and from the construction placed upon it by plaintiff, it must be inferred that the contractor, McGill, was his debtor for these goods. Being a debtor he could have been nothing less than the primary debtor. The obligation of the defendants was, then, that of a guarantor or surety. It was a promise to pay the debt of another and void because it was not in writing. While the language used differs somewhat from that in Butters Salt & Lumber Co. v. Vogel, 130 Mich. 33, it is ruled by that case. It follows that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for defendants. No other complaint demands discussion.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

Grant, C. J., and Hooker, Moore, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 N.W. 1090, 153 Mich. 361, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-alberts-mich-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack