Stansell v. Leavitt

Michigan Supreme Court

Stansell v. Leavitt

12 N.W. 179, 48 Mich. 225, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 783

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 N.W. 179 (Stansell v. Leavitt) 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

Stansell v. Leavitt, 12 N.W. 179, 48 Mich. 225, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 783 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Graves, C. J.

We had this cause before us several terms since and then sent it back for a new trial. The character of the controversy is sufficiently explained in the published report. 44 Mich. 424 At the trial subsequently had pursuant to said order, the circuit judge directed a verdict for defendants, and the plaintiff alleges error. The leading matter of dispute was whether' the written contract of sale made by the plaintiff’s husband was adopted as applicable to the property in question or whether the agreement which had efEect was the oral one made in person by the plaintiff, and in case the latter was the operative arrangement then whether it was an absolute transfer of the chattels to Leavitt’s mortgagor, or was conditional on the payment in sixty days of the Warren mortgage of $2500, as claimed by the plaintiff.

On these subjects there was conflicting testimony and it should have been left to the decision of, the jury under suitable advice. We may not assume that another trial will so proceed as to give rise to such questions as the rest of thé case before us presents.

The judgment is reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Graves, C. J.

We had this cause before us several terms since and then sent it back for a new trial. The character of the controversy is sufficiently explained in the published report. 44 Mich. 424 At the trial subsequently had pursuant to said order, the circuit judge directed a verdict for defendants, and the plaintiff alleges error. The leading matter of dispute was whether' the written contract of sale made by the plaintiff’s husband was adopted as applicable to the property in question or whether the agreement which had efEect was the oral one made in person by the plaintiff, and in case the latter was the operative arrangement then whether it was an absolute transfer of the chattels to Leavitt’s mortgagor, or was conditional on the payment in sixty days of the Warren mortgage of $2500, as claimed by the plaintiff.

On these subjects there was conflicting testimony and it should have been left to the decision of, the jury under suitable advice. We may not assume that another trial will so proceed as to give rise to such questions as the rest of thé case before us presents.

The judgment is reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.W. 179, 48 Mich. 225, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stansell-v-leavitt-mich-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack