Case Name: Orion W. Damon v. Sim DeBar and Otto Frelitz
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1890-11-14
Citations: 83 Mich. 262
Docket Number: 
Parties: Orion W. Damon v. Sim DeBar and Otto Frelitz.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
Orion W. Damon v. Sim DeBar and Otto Frelitz.
Bills and notes—Promise to receive chattels in payment—Consideration.
A promise by the payee in a note, made after its maturity, to receive in payment 200 posts for $10, and apply the same upon the note, the maker agreeing to get out the posts as soon' as-his fall’s work was done, and have them ready for delivery upon his farm, is without consideration, and of no validity until performed by the delivery and acceptance of the posts.
Error to Saginaw. (Gage, J.)
Argued November 11, 1890.
Decided November 14, 1890.
Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
The-facts are stated in the opinion.
Lawson Q. Holden, for appellant.
Trash & Smith, for defendants.

Opinion:
Grant, J.
This case originated in justice's court upon a promissory note for $25, dated May 8, 1888. Plaintiff recovered judgment for $10.28, being the balance due upon the. note. Defendants appealed to the circuit court, where verdict and judgment were rendered in their favor, and plaintiff appealed to this Court.
The only defense is that the plaintiff promised, after the note became due, to receive in payment 200 posts for $10, and apply the same upon the note, and that defendant DeBar promised to get them out as soon as his fall work was done, and to have them ready upon his (De Bar's) farm. This was a mere naked promise without any consideration, and was of no validity until it had been fully performed by the delivery of the posts, and the acceptance by plaintiff. While the posts were lying with others in DeBaNs field, according to his testimony, they were burned. There had been no acceptance by plaintiff of these posts in payment. The circuit judge should, therefore, have instructed the jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and new trial ordered.
The other Justices concurred.