Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Mich. 9

Jones v. Kemp

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1882

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1882-06-21

<p>Sede absolute — Ym'ianae—Fcdse representations as to solvency.</p> <p>Kn arrangement with, a miller to deliver wheat to liim to be paid for on delivery or at any subsequent time when payment shall be demanded, and with an understanding that the miller may use it in his milling business, is a sale absolute if no right is reserved to recall or return it.</p> <p>A declaration on the case charging defendant with having procured plaintiff to sell and deliver goods to him by making false representations as to his own credit, is not supported by evidence that defendant by making false representations of solvency and prompt payment, had obtained an extension of time on a debt already matured.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Beversed · Decided 1882-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1928

3 state decisions

1018821890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, J.

¶1This was an action on the case, for fraud in the purchase of wheat. The declaration contains 3 *10counts, all of which under various forms set out that defendant by false representations as to his credit procured, plaintiff to sell and deliver certain wheat to him.

¶2The facts found by the amended finding are that in October, 1875, an arrangement was made whereby plaintiff was-to deliver to defendant, who was a miller, four hundred and fifty bushels of wheat, to be paid for on delivery or at any subsequent time when plaintiff demanded payment, at the-Grand Bapids price current at the time of demand. It was-understood that .defend ant might — as he did — use the wheat in his milling business to mix with other wheat of a different character for immediate grinding. In June, 1876, plaintiff demanded his pay at the current rates, and was-induced to take a bank check at 10 days, by representations-of solvency and prompt payment. In that interim defendant stopped business and made an assignment, having been insolvent, for some period not named, but earlier than June 1. The court on this held the deposit a bailment and the transaction of June 1 the only sale, and gave judgment, for plaintiff.

¶3We think this was erroneous. The plaintiff reserved no-right to recall his wheat or any wheat or flour in its place. Defendant reserved no right to return it actually or in kind-lie was bound at all events to keep it, and to pay for it on demand, while the money was payable without contingency. This was a sale and delivery at once, and without any credit’ on which defendant could rely. ITe was bound to have his-money always ready, and to pay when called on.

¶4There was no fraud shown in the original dealings. If any fraud was committed at all it was in getting an extension of time on a matured debt. This is not the fraud charged. Had defendant refused on the 1st of June to make payment, plaintiff’s only remedy would have been by action for the price. He could not have reclaimed the property.

¶5The action therefore was misapprehended.

¶6Judgment must be reversed, and judgment entered for defendant on the finding, with costs of both courte

Graves, O. J. and Cooley, J. concurred.
/49/mich/9 · .json · Public domain