Case ID: mich_256/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fead, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PAINE v. SWIFT.
    1. Appeal and Error — Trial Without Jury — Questions Open to Review in Absence op Findings or Exceptions.
    Where, in ease tried without jury, there were no formal findings or exceptions, only question open for review is whether there was any evidence to sustain judgment.
    2. Same — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    In action on postdated check and .for balance due under contract of sale, testimony by defendant that eheck was postdated to enable him to investigate before contract should become effective, that he had investigated and refused to consummate sale, held, sufficient to sustain judgment for defendant. '
    Appeal from Wayne; Spier (James E.), J., presiding.
    Submitted October 7, 1931.
    (Docket No. 36, Calendar No. 35,593.)
    Decided January 4, 1932.
    Assumpsit by Edith A. Paine against Frederick John Swift' and another on a contract for certain sales rights. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      George K. Williams (John H. Flancher, of counsel), for plaintiff.
    
      Samuel L. Weller, for defendants.
   Fead, J.

In writing, plaintiff sold to defendants the right to sell hot tamales and tamale steamers in Wayne county for one year for $900. Swift gave her a check for $600, postdated four days. The check was not paid when due, and Swift notified plaintiff he would not proceed with the transaction.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover on the check and the additional $300 under the contract. The case was tried before the court without a jury. There were no formal findings or exceptions, under the then prevailing practice, and the only question here is whether there was any evidence to sustain the judgment.

The import of Swift’s testimony, taken without objection, is that the check was postdated to enable him to investigate before the contract should become effective. On investigation, he failed to find business where plaintiff claimed it was, and refused to consummate the sale. This testimony sustains the judgment for defendants, and it is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.