TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Lowe

Clark v. Lowe, 71 N.W. 638 (Mich. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 7, 1897
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
71 N.W. 638113 Mich. 3521897 Mich. LEXIS 783
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Deeds — Consideration —Assumption of Indebtedness — Parol Evidence. A grantee tinder a deed by which, he assumes, as a part of the consideration, the payment of one-third of the indebtedness-of a certain business, may show by parol, in an action by him against his grantor to recover an excess of moneys so paid, that the d^bts which he assumed were agreed to amount to a certain sum, while in fact they exceeded it.
Summary
Error to Eaton; Smith, J. Assumpsit by Frank B. Clark against Egbert W. Lowe for moneys paid to defendant’s use. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Plaintiff and defendant exchanged real estate, and each executed to the other the proper deed of conveyance. In the deed from defendant to plaintiff the consideration was expressed at $3,000. The deed contained the following: “The said Frank B. Clark hereby assumes, in consideration herein set forth, and hereby agrees to pay, the undivided one-third of all debts, dues, and demands against said Sunfield Milling Company.” The property conveyed by the defendant to plaintiff was a one-third interest in the flouring mill, a house and lot, and a one-third interest in the accounts of the Sunfield Milling Company, a co-partnership of which defendant was a member. Plaintiff claimed and was permitted to show that the debts, one-third of which he assumed, were agreed at the time to be $1,420.25; that, in point of fact, they exceeded that amount; and that he paid the actual amount. He brought this suit to recover the excess so paid. He recovered a verdict of $116.14. No fraud is charged, but plaintiff gave evidence tending to show a mistake in two or three items, the principal one being that one debt was included in the statement at $2.67, while in fact it was $267.

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

Opinion of the Court — Grant

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The defendant contends that the agreement was set forth in the deed, and that this agreement cannot be varied by parol. We think the case is ruled by Bowker v. Johnson, 17 Mich. 42 , and Ford v. Savage, 111 Mich. 144 .

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1900: 11930: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Eckler v. Alden84 N.W. 141 (Mich. 1900)
  2. Hagan v. Moch229 N.W. 629 (Mich. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Hagan v. Moch229 N.W. 629 (Mich. 1930)
  2. Eckler v. Alden84 N.W. 141 (Mich. 1900)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Bowker v. Johnson, 17 Mich. 42 (1868) 15
Ford v. Savage, 69 N.W. 240 (Mich. 1896) 6

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