Willox v. Townsend

Michigan Supreme Court

Willox v. Townsend

223 N.W. 226, 245 Mich. 632, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 1001

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1929

DocketDocket No. 48, Calendar No. 33,901.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 223 N.W. 226 (Willox v. Townsend) 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

Willox v. Townsend, 223 N.W. 226, 245 Mich. 632, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 1001 (Mich. 1929).

Pincite

Opinions

*633 Fead, J.

Plaintiff was a subcontractor, working for one Scbroeder, who had a contract to construct a building for defendant. This suit is for the balance unpaid on the subcontract, and is grounded upon the claim that defendant orally promised to pay plaintiff the balance in consideration of his completing the work, and that he did so. Plaintiff had verdict of a jury and new trial was denied by the court. Defendant’s contentions are:

1. That the declaration was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Not having challenged the sufficiency of the declaration at the trial by motion, nor objected to the admission of testimony thereunder, nor otherwise raised the question before verdict, defendant waived this objection. McHardy v. Wadsworth, 8 Mich. 349; Stone v. Covell, 29 Mich. 359; Merkle v. Township of Bennington, 68 Mich. 133; Frankel v. Coots, 41 Mich. 75.

2. That plaintiff is estopped from maintaining the suit because of sworn statements and waivers of lien which he delivered to the general contractor. This defense was not pleaded (Circuit Court Pule No. 23, § 2), the record does not show it was suggested at the trial and it is not here for review.

3. That the testimony failed to show consideration running to defendant to take his alleged promise to pay Schroeder’s debt out of the statute of frauds. Plaintiff’s testimony was that defendant promised to pay if plaintiff would complete the work; that, he completed it in all respects except in one, in regard to which he was prevented from performance by defendant’s daughter and by an immediately subsequent letter from defendant himself. This was sufficient consideration. McLaughlin v. Austin, 104 Mich. 489.

*634 4. That the verdict was against tbe weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s testimony was contradictory. Defendant conceded that the parties had a conversation in which plaintiff’s pay for his work was discussed. The essential difference between them was whether such conversation occurred before or after plaintiff’s work was completed, and whether defendant said he would pay plaintiff or would help him get his pay from Schroeder. We agree with the circuit judge that the weight of the evidence was not so overwhelmingly against the verdict as to justify its reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

North, C. J., and Clark, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred with Fead, J.

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

*633 Fead, J.

Plaintiff was a subcontractor, working for one Scbroeder, who had a contract to construct a building for defendant. This suit is for the balance unpaid on the subcontract, and is grounded upon the claim that defendant orally promised to pay plaintiff the balance in consideration of his completing the work, and that he did so. Plaintiff had verdict of a jury and new trial was denied by the court. Defendant’s contentions are:

1. That the declaration was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Not having challenged the sufficiency of the declaration at the trial by motion, nor objected to the admission of testimony thereunder, nor otherwise raised the question before verdict, defendant waived this objection. McHardy v. Wadsworth, 8 Mich. 349; Stone v. Covell, 29 Mich. 359; Merkle v. Township of Bennington, 68 Mich. 133; Frankel v. Coots, 41 Mich. 75.

2. That plaintiff is estopped from maintaining the suit because of sworn statements and waivers of lien which he delivered to the general contractor. This defense was not pleaded (Circuit Court Pule No. 23, § 2), the record does not show it was suggested at the trial and it is not here for review.

3. That the testimony failed to show consideration running to defendant to take his alleged promise to pay Schroeder’s debt out of the statute of frauds. Plaintiff’s testimony was that defendant promised to pay if plaintiff would complete the work; that, he completed it in all respects except in one, in regard to which he was prevented from performance by defendant’s daughter and by an immediately subsequent letter from defendant himself. This was sufficient consideration. McLaughlin v. Austin, 104 Mich. 489.

*634 4. That the verdict was against tbe weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s testimony was contradictory. Defendant conceded that the parties had a conversation in which plaintiff’s pay for his work was discussed. The essential difference between them was whether such conversation occurred before or after plaintiff’s work was completed, and whether defendant said he would pay plaintiff or would help him get his pay from Schroeder. We agree with the circuit judge that the weight of the evidence was not so overwhelmingly against the verdict as to justify its reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

North, C. J., and Clark, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred with Fead, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 N.W. 226, 245 Mich. 632, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willox-v-townsend-mich-1929.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack