Case Name: Malcolm McDonald v. Charles Bewick, Andrew W. Comstock et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1883-06-20
Citations: 51 Mich. 79
Docket Number: 
Parties: Malcolm McDonald v. Charles Bewick, Andrew W. Comstock et al.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
Malcolm McDonald v. Charles Bewick, Andrew W. Comstock et al.
Agreement to eonl/raei.
.A written instrument, dated and signed, and in'these terms: “ We agree to sell one million feet of Norway in town 28 N. 8 E., on our lands * * and will make a contract with him, giving him the right to go on said lands and cut and remove said timber on payment for the same. The price of said Norway to be $1.50 per M. hoard measure,” etc., is not a contract hut merely an offer to make one on stated terms, and will not of itself support an action.
Error to Alpena. (Tuttle, J.)
June 6.
June 20.
Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
J. D. JJobnes for appellant.
J. D. Turnbull for appellees.

Opinion:
Graves, C. J.
The court committed no error in directing a verdict for defendants. The plaintiff bases his right to recover on this writing:
" AlpeNA, Mich., Dec. 5, 1879.
•We agree to sell Malcolm McDonald one million feet of Norway, in town 28 N., 8 E., on our lands along Alger E. E.; said Norway to be suitable for making square timber; and will make a contract with him, giving him the right to go on said lands and cut and remove said timber on payment for the same.
The price of said Norway to be $1.50 per M. board measure, and said timber to be selected Norway. "We do not guaranty any certain amount of timber on said lands that McDonald will take, but do say there is one million feet of good Norway, and more.
BewioK, CoMstooK & Co."
This instrument was not a contract. It was simply an. offer to make one, with a statement of the terms. There was no mutuality. It was the act alone of the defendants, and it was not supported by any duty or obligation of the plaintiff, or of any other person, or by any form of consideration whatever, and there was no averment of acceptance by the plaintiff. There is no appearance of a cause of action. The Governor, Guardians, &c. of the Poor of Kingston-upon-Hull v. Petch 28 E. L. & E. 470; Lees v. Whitcomb 5 Bing. 34; Sykes v. Dixon 9 A. & E. 693; James v. Williams 5 B. & Ad. 1109 ; Tucker v. Woods 12 Johns. 190; Quick v. Wheeler 78 N. Y. 300.
It is needless to inquire concerning other objections.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.