Westcott v. Wade
This text of 116 N.W. 1002 (Westcott v. Wade) 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.
Opinion
(after stating the facts).
[341]*341Defendant contends that under the verbal contract testified to by plaintiff he had no right to pay until the lumber was inspected, and this suit was brought before that inspection. We answer this contention by saying that the testimony of plaintiff is certainly open to the construction that the contract obligated defendant to pay $3 per thousand as fast as the lumber was sawed. Plaintiff testified that defendant said, “ as fast as you cut the lumber you will be paid the money.” It cannot, therefore, be said, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was obliged to wait for his money until the lumber was inspected. We therefore overrule defendant’s contention that this suit was prematurely brought.
2. Was the judgment excessive ?
Defendant contends that it was, to the amount of $10.51. We content ourselves with saying that there was evidence from which the jury might find that the amount of the damages was $81.50. Perhaps they should have found a verdict for a smaller amount. If so, that question should have been raised by a motion for a new trial. It was not so raised and we cannot consider it.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
116 N.W. 1002, 153 Mich. 340, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 1033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westcott-v-wade-mich-1908.