TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Engle v. Campbell

George S. Engle and Elbridge F. Bacon v. Merlin Campbell

Engle v. Campbell, 4 N.W. 301 (Mich. 1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 23, 1880
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
4 N.W. 30142 Mich. 5651880 Mich. LEXIS 716
Headnotes
Evidence under the common counts in action upon contract. If a declaration on a contract is on the common counts and there is no bill of particulars, the parties have a right to go to the jury on any contract that will sustain a right of recovery, and are not confined to a particular contract as sworn to by the plaintiff, if that varies from the one actually performed by him.
Summary
Error to Huron. Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiffs sued defendant for commissions on a sale of land which they claimed was made according to his agreement, but which he refused to ratify.

Upon the trial below Engle testified to an agreement for a commission of 5 per cent if the land was sold on certain terms, which he says were complied with. The defense disputed, the terms, and the agency as described by Engle, and also set up in proof a different contract, which was also claimed by Engle to have entitled him to some compensation if complied with. Performance of either was disputed.

We have no means of knowing whether the finding of the jury was based on a disbelief of the contract as alleged by Engle, or on a belief that it had not been carried out. They found against plaintiffs. The only important error alleged is that the court confined the right of recovery to the particular contract as sworn to by Engle, and precluded recovery if that varied from any other contract if one was made and performed.

This would be proper if the suit had been on a declaration or bill of particulars distinctly describing it. But the declaration was on the common counts, and we are not informed that there was any bill of particulars. Upon the conflict of testimony on various points plaintiffs had a right to go -to the jury upon any contract which made out to the satisfaction of the jury a fulfillment giving á cause of recovery.

Judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1882–1883: 11888–1889: 11906–1907: 11934–1935: 11942–1943: 11970–1971: 118822026peak 1882 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Belknap v. Belknap107 N.W. 692 (S.D. 1906)
  2. Loewenthal Co. v. Ribnick263 N.W. 710 (S.D. 1935)
  3. Guilmet v. Campbell188 N.W.2d 601 (Mich. 1971)
  4. McKenzie v. Sykes11 N.W. 164 (Mich. 1882)
  5. Bush v. Brooks38 N.W. 562 (Mich. 1888)
  6. Fraser v. Collier Construction Co.8 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. 1943)

Most recent

  1. Guilmet v. Campbell188 N.W.2d 601 (Mich. 1971)
  2. Fraser v. Collier Construction Co.8 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. 1943)
  3. Loewenthal Co. v. Ribnick263 N.W. 710 (S.D. 1935)
  4. Belknap v. Belknap107 N.W. 692 (S.D. 1906)
  5. Bush v. Brooks38 N.W. 562 (Mich. 1888)
  6. McKenzie v. Sykes11 N.W. 164 (Mich. 1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list