Thatcher v. Hayes

19 N.W. 946, 54 Mich. 184, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 540
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 18, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 19 N.W. 946 (Thatcher v. Hayes) 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
Thatcher v. Hayes, 19 N.W. 946, 54 Mich. 184, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 540 (Mich. 1884).

Opinion

Cooley, C. J.

The bill in this case is filed for an accounting. Congdon, the intestate, being indebted to Hayes, and being owner of a large amount of lumber, shingles, logs and machinery, made a nominal sale of them to Hayes, with the purpose that Hayes should sell them and account for the proceeds. Hayes has made sale [of them all, and now the question is whether he has accounted for all the proceeds.

A sale of lumber was made to one Taft, and notes taken for the purchase price. Upon one of these notes an indorsement of $528 was made as for a payment. One of the principal questions in the case is whether Hayes received this sum, or whether the indorsement was for the value of shingles which Taft furnished to one White on a debt owing by Congdon to White. After full and patient consideration of the case we are constrained to say that the evidence leads us to the conclusion that Congdon’s estate should be charged with the price of shingles furnished by Taft to White; the evidence satisfactorily showing that they were furnished on Congdo'n’s debt. But we do not think the allowance can exceed the sum stated in Congdon’s letter referring to the transaction, dated December 28, 1874, in which it is given at $420. Without the aid of this letter we do not think the main fact could be established against Congdon; and we cannot give it effect beyond its terms.

[186]*186It is not entirely plain that other allowances ought not to be made to Hayes, but the burden of proof is upon, him, and we cannot say that he has satisfactorily established his right to any other.

The decree must be modified so as to make the allowance mentioned, and Hayes will recover the costs of this Court.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Disenroth v. Jennings
73 N.W.2d 875 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1955)
Thamert v. Carter
245 P.2d 145 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1952)
Boden v. Renihan
300 N.W. 53 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1941)
Long Valley Land & Development Co. v. Hunt
266 P. 917 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1928)
McGinnis v. McGinnis
202 S.W. 1087 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)
Johnson v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.
135 P. 589 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
Fox v. Hall
128 P. 749 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Holthouse v. Poling
99 N.E. 810 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Sittel
1908 OK 151 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Dettering v. Nordstrom
148 F. 81 (Ninth Circuit, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 N.W. 946, 54 Mich. 184, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thatcher-v-hayes-mich-1884.