Sherwood v. Walker

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

Contents

Background

This case was an action in replevin for possession of a polled Angus cattle cow, [9] 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. [10] 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. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend". It is also referred to as a plea of no contest or no defense.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases.

- A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought by a plaintiff requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of overuse or abuse of judicial resources.

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, "prejudice" differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hiram Walker</span> American entrepreneur (1816-1899)

Hiram Walker was an American entrepreneur and founder of the Hiram Walker and Sons Ltd. distillery in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Walker was born in East Douglas, Massachusetts, and moved to Detroit in 1838. He purchased land across the Detroit River, just east of what is Windsor, Ontario, and established a distillery in 1858 in what would become Walkerville, Ontario. Walker began selling his whisky as Hiram Walker's Club Whisky, in containers that were "clearly marked" and he used a process to make his whisky that was vastly different from all other distillers.

Replevin or claim and delivery is a legal remedy, which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.

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.

<i>Non est factum</i> Defence in contract law

Non est factum is a defence in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of an agreement "which is fundamentally different from what he or she intended to execute or sign". A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning. A successful plea would make the contract void ab initio.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

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 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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Murphy III</span> American judge

Stephen Joseph Murphy III is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

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.

Dougherty v. Stepp, 18 N.C. 371 is a decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court authored by Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin. For at least a century, this case has been used in first-year Torts classes in American law schools to teach students about the tort of trespass upon real property.

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.

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

References

  1. ↑ "Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887)". CourtListener. Free Law Project. Retrieved 9 July 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
  7. ↑ Sherwood v. Walker
  8. ↑ Case Brief of Sherwood v. Walker Available at Lawnix
  9. ↑ "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.
  10. ↑ Stockmeyer, Otto. "Local Voice: Mutual-mistake defense has torturous history". LegalNews.com. Detroit Legal News. Retrieved 9 July 2018.
  11. ↑ Ayala, Terrence. "Blog Post: Buyer Keeps Pregnant Cow!". rose2d.com. KewSpace LLC. Retrieved 22 October 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.