Toombs v. Stockwell

Michigan Supreme Court

Toombs v. Stockwell

92 N.W. 288, 131 Mich. 633, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 711

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1902

DocketDocket No. 67

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 92 N.W. 288 (Toombs v. Stockwell) 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

Toombs v. Stockwell, 92 N.W. 288, 131 Mich. 633, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 711 (Mich. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

A statement of the issue in this case will be found in 127 Mich. 379 (86 N. W. 806). Upon the second trial the defendant was permitted to show by parol testimony that the parties did not understand the term, “to be fully settled for within ten days,” to mean payment, but that the agent of the Ideal Flatiron Company informed Mrs. Servis and Mr. Stockwell that she would pay the money out of what goods she sold, and account for those unsold.

The term “settled,” or “to be settled for,” does not necessarily mean payment. One lexicographer defines “settle” to mean “to adjust differences, claims, or accounts; come to an agreement.” Cent. Diet. & Enc. Another says: “Settle implies the mutual adjustment of accounts, and an agreement upon the balance.” And. Law Diet. 944. The conversation, therefore, between the parties' was competent in order to explain what was meant by the term. If the Ideal Flatiron Com[634]*634pany desired payment within 10 days, and a guaranty thereof, it should have used language which meant that and nothing else.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, J.

A statement of the issue in this case will be found in 127 Mich. 379 (86 N. W. 806). Upon the second trial the defendant was permitted to show by parol testimony that the parties did not understand the term, “to be fully settled for within ten days,” to mean payment, but that the agent of the Ideal Flatiron Company informed Mrs. Servis and Mr. Stockwell that she would pay the money out of what goods she sold, and account for those unsold.

The term “settled,” or “to be settled for,” does not necessarily mean payment. One lexicographer defines “settle” to mean “to adjust differences, claims, or accounts; come to an agreement.” Cent. Diet. & Enc. Another says: “Settle implies the mutual adjustment of accounts, and an agreement upon the balance.” And. Law Diet. 944. The conversation, therefore, between the parties' was competent in order to explain what was meant by the term. If the Ideal Flatiron Com[634]*634pany desired payment within 10 days, and a guaranty thereof, it should have used language which meant that and nothing else.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.W. 288, 131 Mich. 633, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toombs-v-stockwell-mich-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack