Sutherland v. Carter

Michigan Supreme Court

Sutherland v. Carter

17 N.W. 780, 52 Mich. 151, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 476

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 20, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 17 N.W. 780 (Sutherland v. Carter) 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

Sutherland v. Carter, 17 N.W. 780, 52 Mich. 151, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 476 (Mich. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff brought replevin for a yoke of cattle which defendant held under an arrangement for their purchase, which the court below held void under the Statute of Frauds. It is not necessary to go into, all the facts, as the case was left to the jury under instructions upon defendant’s hypothesis, and ruled against him.

Upon this view, which the testimony seems to bear out, defendant was engaged in doing work on the land of plaintiff’s wife, and needed a yoke of -oxen. Plaintiff let him have the cattle, on the understanding that defendant should own them as soon as he had done a sufficient amount of clearing to make up their value, fixed at $100. Defendant did the work and claimed to own the oxen.

We cannot see how the Statute of Frauds covers such a case. It could in no way concern defendant what reason plaintiff had for desiring to have his wife’s land cleared, and he might fairly assume that plaintiff and his wife had arranged or would' arrange the matter to suit themselves. The property having been delivered to defendant on that condition, became his as soon as it was- performed. Mrs. [153]*153Sutherland was a stranger to the sale. - The only parties to that transaction were plaintiff and defendant.

The defendant was entitled to the charge which he requested.

The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff brought replevin for a yoke of cattle which defendant held under an arrangement for their purchase, which the court below held void under the Statute of Frauds. It is not necessary to go into, all the facts, as the case was left to the jury under instructions upon defendant’s hypothesis, and ruled against him.

Upon this view, which the testimony seems to bear out, defendant was engaged in doing work on the land of plaintiff’s wife, and needed a yoke of -oxen. Plaintiff let him have the cattle, on the understanding that defendant should own them as soon as he had done a sufficient amount of clearing to make up their value, fixed at $100. Defendant did the work and claimed to own the oxen.

We cannot see how the Statute of Frauds covers such a case. It could in no way concern defendant what reason plaintiff had for desiring to have his wife’s land cleared, and he might fairly assume that plaintiff and his wife had arranged or would' arrange the matter to suit themselves. The property having been delivered to defendant on that condition, became his as soon as it was- performed. Mrs. [153]*153Sutherland was a stranger to the sale. - The only parties to that transaction were plaintiff and defendant.

The defendant was entitled to the charge which he requested.

The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.W. 780, 52 Mich. 151, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-carter-mich-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack