Citation Numbers: 54 Mich. 277
Judges: Campbell, Champlin, Cooley, Sherwood
Filed Date: 6/25/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
This suit, which was- before us on a different record and reported in 51 Mich. 232, is an action to-recover $2000 which plaintiff testified defendant agreed to pay him in consideration of the conveyance of certain lands in Flint of greater value, which plaintiff claims were turned out to induce defendant to relieve him, from, any further liability and settle up some demands- which, defendant wished, to have paid up, and which plaintiff was unwilling to pay. Upon the former record as the testimony was represented in-the bill of exceptions, we were of opinion that the plaintiff’s showing made out no such transaction. On the new trial he explained his former testimony and made out a full showing,, if believed, which would justify a- verdict in his favor. The-jury acted upon his testimony and gave him, the amount claimed, less a set-off of an amount due defendant on a different transaction. Defendant brings error.
The principal argument was aimed at showing that plaintiff’s testimony showed the dealing to be a security and not a sale. This ground is not tenable. The testimony was properly submitted to the jury on the conflicting evidence,, and there was enough to authorize them in their finding.
The parties had for some time before this arrangement been dealing somewhat heavily in Chicago- speculative transactions involving options and margins, and had balances-
It is a doctrine well settled that such a transfer of land is a legal consideration for such an agreement as plaintiff relies on. And it could make no difference, as the court correctly instructed the jury, whether the matters so adjusted were binding or not binding obligations. If defendant was willing, in consideration of what plaintiff testifies was reckoned as worth $2000, to see that he should be relieved from them, the bargain was one which could lawfully be made, and the jury have found it was made.
It was urged further that defendant was entitled to set' off
Upon the whole record we find nothing to indicate any erroneous rulings. The j'udgment must be affirmed.