Sherwood v. Walker

Last updated

Sherwood v. Walker
Court Michigan Supreme Court
Full case name Theodore C. Sherwood v. Hiram Walker et al.
DecidedJuly 7, 1887
Citations 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887)
Case history
Prior actionsWayne Co. Cir. Ct., first trial, jury verdict for plaintiff
Appealed fromWayne Co. Cir. Ct.
Subsequent actionsWayne Co. Cir. Ct., on remand, jury verdict for plaintiff
Court membership
Judges sitting James V. Campbell
John W. Champlin
Allen B. Morse
Thomas R. Sherwood
Case opinions
Allen B. Morse (majority)
Thomas R. Sherwood (dissent)
Keywords

Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887), [1] was a case that has played an important role in the evolution of American contract law involving the doctrine of mutual mistake. One of the main issues in the case was whether the remedy of rescission is available if both parties to a contract share a misunderstanding about an essential fact. [2] Commonly referred to as the "Pregnant Cow Case," the case is a staple of first-year law school contract law class discussions and textbooks [3] [4] [5] and has been briefed extensively online. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Contents

Background

This case was an action in replevin for possession of a polled Angus cow, [10] which are bred most commonly for the production of beef as opposed to dairy products. The suit was originally brought in a justice's court, a state court within the jurisdiction of Michigan, and appealed to the circuit court of Wayne County, Michigan.

The substance of the appellate decision, which was rendered by the Michigan Supreme Court after the defendant and appellants set out 25 assignments of error, involves a transaction between Hiram Walker et al., importers and breeders of polled Angus cattle (and grocers and distillers), and Theodore Sherwood, a farmer and banker from Plymouth, Michigan. Sherwood sought to purchase cattle. On May 5, 1886, Sherwood called upon the Walkers at their farm and adjacent pasture land in Walkerville, Ontario, but did not find a cow that suited him. Thereafter, the Walkers invited him to visit their farm in Greenfield, Michigan, where they kept a few head of cattle that were "probably barren, and would not breed."

A few days after visiting the Walkers' farm, Sherwood informed them that he wished to purchase the cow known as "Rose 2d of Aberlone." The parties agreed upon a price of 51⁄2 cents per pound live weight, a price that was much less than the value of a fertile Angus breeding cow. Soon thereafter, the Walkers discovered that the cow was in fact with calf and not barren, unlike what they had believed when they entered the agreement with Sherwood. When Sherwood returned to the farm several days later, the Walkers refused to accept payment or to deliver the cow. In turn, Sherwood brought suit in the Justice Court of Plymouth, Michigan, and obtained a writ of replevin for possession of the cow. The Walkers then filed an appeal in Wayne Circuit Court, which conducted a jury trial. During the trial, among other things, the court instructed the jury that "it was immaterial whether the cow was with calf or not." With those instructions, the jury decided in Sherwood's favor and the Walkers appealed.

The appeal was heard in 1887 by the Supreme Court of Michigan. There, the Walkers contended that the contract for the cow was "executory" and claimed that both parties had been mistaken as to the nature of the cow as barren or fertile and able to bear calves. At trial, the Walkers argued that they had mistakenly agreed to sell the cow at the price of a barren cow, which was $80. They also argued that because the cow was in fact with calf, she was actually worth between $750 and $1000. The issue (under Michigan contract law) was whether the defendants (Walkers) could refuse to deliver the cow because, as a factual matter, the parties entered their contract with the shared and mistaken understanding that the cow was infertile.

Judgment

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the trial court's jury instructions were incorrect, and granted the Walker defendants' request for a new trial. On remand, the trial court was to instruct the jury that the defendants had a right to rescind the contract "if they found that the cow was sold ... upon the understanding of both parties that she was barren, and useless for the purpose of breeding...."

Ultimately, after a second trial, the jury entered another verdict for the plaintiff. [11] If it is assumed that the trial court proceeded in accordance with the appellate decision, the second jury's verdict indicates a factual finding that any mistake concerning the cow's fertility was mutual. Thus, in the end, the contract was able to be rescinded, and Sherwood (the buyer) kept the cow. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

Nolo contendere is a type of legal plea used in some jurisdictions in the United States. It is also referred to as a plea of no contest or no defense. It is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty. A no-contest plea means that defendants refuse to admit guilt but accept punishment as if guilty, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

In tort law, detinue is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed, a claimant must first prove that he had better right to possession of the chattel than the defendant, and second, that the defendant refused to return the chattel once demanded by the claimant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mistake (contract law)</span> Concept in contract law

In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully, can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable, or alternatively, an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake', and the 'common mistake'. The distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake' is important.

<i>Smith v Hughes</i> English contract law case

Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 is an English contract law case. In it, Blackburn J set out his classic statement of the objective interpretation of people's conduct when entering into a contract. The case regarded a mistake made by Mr. Hughes, a horse trainer, who bought a quantity of oats that were the same as a sample he had been shown. However, Hughes had misidentified the kind of oats: his horse could not eat them, and he refused to pay for them. Smith, the oat supplier, sued for Hughes to complete the sale as agreed. The court sided with Smith, as he provided the oats Hughes agreed to buy. That Hughes made a mistake was his own fault, as he had not been misled by Smith. Since Smith had made no fault, there was no mutual mistake, and the sale contract was still valid.

Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P.2d 109, is a US contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. It concerns the question of when specific performance of a contractual obligation will be granted and the measure of expectation damages.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

State v. Mitchell, 170 Mo. 633, 71 S.W. 175 (1902), is a precedent-setting decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri which is part of the body of case law involving the prosecution of failed attempts to commit a crime. In United States law, cases involving failed criminal attempts can bring up interesting legal issues of whether the crime was unsuccessful due to factual impossibility or to legal impossibility.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".

Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation. In a decision written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, a waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless the accused individual initiated the communication.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly, 331 N.W.2d 203 (1982) is a US contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan. It used a risk of loss analysis to justify the denial of rescission as a contract remedy despite the presence of mutual mistake.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders</span> U.S. federal prosecutions, 1949–1958

The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders in New York City from 1949 to 1958 were the result of US federal government prosecutions in the postwar period and during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute that prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. The defendants argued that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership in a political party. Appeals from these trials reached the US Supreme Court, which ruled on issues in Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).

Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp., 187 Cal.App.4th 1295 (2010), is the second appeal on a dispute dated back to 1999. During the original 2000 case, defendant E*Trade, an online financial services company, was found liable for maliciously and willfully misappropriating trade secrets pertaining to wireless stock trading technology acquired from the plaintiff, Ajaxo. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act E*Trade was required under a mutually signed Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to keep Ajaxo's trade secrets confidential. After a jury trial in 2003, E*Trade was fined $1.3 million to be paid to Ajaxo for the misappropriation and breach of NDA. The court denied Ajaxo's request for additional damages. All parties appealed. In 2005 the California courts of appeal affirmed the original ruling but remanded the case back to the trial court to determine additional damages. A jury verdict in 2008 rejected claims raised and demands for royalty damages from Ajaxo. In trade secret cases it is common for a plaintiff to seek royalty damages when they are unable to show an actual loss or that the defendant received some inequitable benefit from the misappropriation. In this case the court refused to allow evidence of royalty damages, claiming there were no net damages. Ajaxo appealed. In 2010 the California courts of appeal once again remanded the case back to the trial court reasoning that in such cases an exact quantitative measure of wrongful enrichment damages incurred by the plaintiff might not be sufficient to reject the claim of reasonable royalties based damages

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court decision that clarified both the scope of the protection against double jeopardy provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the limits of an appellate court's discretion to fashion a remedy under section 2106 of Title 28 to the United States Code. It established the constitutional rule that where an appellate court reverses a criminal conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Double Jeopardy Clause shields the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding the power that appellate courts have under section 2106 to "remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances," a court that reverses a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence may not allow the lower court a choice on remand between acquitting the defendant and ordering a new trial. The "only 'just' remedy" in this situation, the Court held, is to order an acquittal.

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. Established by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex. Powers expanded the jurisdictions of this principle, allowing all parties within a case, defendants especially, to question preemptory challenges during a jury selection, regardless of race. This holding was protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ "Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887)". CourtListener. Free Law Project. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  2. ↑ 66 Mich. at 578.
  3. ↑ U. Of California, Law School at Berkeley web site citing Cooter and Ulen, 1st Edition (1988) Archived 2006-04-23 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ University of Dayton Law School website Archived 2007-07-04 at the Wayback Machine (Adobe needed)
  5. ↑ University of Pittsburgh Law School website, Jurist section
  6. ↑ Sherwood v. Walker. lawschool.mikeshecket.com.
  7. ↑ "Sherwood v. Walker Case Brief". 4lawschool.com. Archived from the original on December 5, 2021.
  8. ↑ Case Brief of Sherwood v. Walker Available at Lawnix
  9. ↑ "Sherwood v Walker" (PDF). Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society. Michigan Bar Journal. January 2009.
  10. ↑ "Sherwood v. Walker". Briefs Pro. 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2022. Mr. Sherwood was a banker and wanted to buy some cattle from Mr. Walker, who imported native Black Angus cattle.
  11. ↑ Stockmeyer, Otto. "Local Voice: Mutual-mistake defense has torturous history". LegalNews.com. Detroit Legal News. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  12. ↑ Ayala, Terrence. "Blog Post: Buyer Keeps Pregnant Cow!". rose2d.com. KewSpace LLC. Retrieved October 22, 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.