OTIS M. SMITH, J.
Plaintiffs, Harold T. Goslin and Margaret E. Goslin, husband and wife, sued Charlotte Goslin for specific performance. Harold T. Goslin is a son of Charlotte Goslin. The trial court found that an enforceable contract for the sale of realty was entered into between plaintiffs and the defendant and her deceased husband, Alfred J. Goslin. Charlotte Goslin appeals from the decree of specific performance.
The question for review is whether or not, in view of the facts and circumstances, 2 receipts are sufficient as memoranda to take the transaction out of the statute of frauds. CL 1948, § 566.108 (Stat Ann 1953 Rev § 26.908).
The first receipt reads as follows:
On the back of this receipt there is the notation: "Payment on farm he lives on."
On the back is written the following notation:
From the pretrial statement it appears that the issues framed for trial were as follows: 1. Was there an agreement binding on the defendant? 2. What was it? 3. Is it enforceable? 4. Has defendant violated it? Two other issues contained in the pretrial statement are not pertinent to this discussion. Judge Quinn found that there was an agreement between plaintiffs and the defendant and her husband and that the agreement was enforceable.
Defendant and her husband owned and farmed 140 acres near the 42-acre farm presently in dispute. In 1946 they entered into a land contract for the purchase of the 42-acre farm for the sum of $9,000. The land contract was fulfilled by deed on May 13, 1948. It is not denied that defendant and her husband visited plaintiffs in their apartment in Sebewaing in the spring of 1947, and that some kind of an agreement respecting the 42-acre farm was reached between the parties. In August, 1947, plaintiffs moved to the house on said farm and have
Plaintiffs rely on our decision in Duke v. Miller, 355 Mich. 540. In Duke, plaintiffs appealed from an order dismissing their bill of complaint for specific performance for the sale of land. They relied upon a memorandum which reads as follows:
We held this memorandum to be sufficient under the statute of frauds despite defendant's attack that the memorandum did not specify the time for payment of the balance and closing the deal. We said that when a contract is silent as to time of performance or payment, absent any expression of a contrary intent, the law will presume a reasonable time.
"Indulgence of that presumption or inference does not amount to the court's making a new contract for the parties or varying its terms, but merely gives effect to what it is reasonable to assume the parties intended when no contrary intention appears on the face of the instrument."
However, defendant argues herein on appeal that the agreement in question contemplates deferred payments and that when such is the case the memoranda must contain every detail of the agreement, otherwise it falls within the statute. In view of the authority cited to support her position it would be easy to dismiss this argument by simply pointing to the fact that the memoranda in question do not indicate on the face of either that deferred payments were intended. It is sound and more meaningful, however, to refer bench and bar to 2 Corbin on Contracts, § 498, page 683:
"Let us proceed, therefore, with a general consideration of what constitutes a sufficient note or memorandum. We may well start with this one general doctrine: There are few, if any, specific and uniform requirements. The statute itself prescribes none; and a study of the existing thousands of cases does not justify us in asserting their existence. Some note or memorandum having substantial probative value in establishing the contract must exist; but its sufficiency in attaining the purpose of the statute depends in each case upon the setting in which it is found. * * * That is the rule of law to be applied with intelligence and discrimination and not like a pedant playing a game of logomachy."
That the trial judge applied the statute with discrimination appears from his summary in his opinion:
We concur in this finding and also the conclusion that the memoranda were sufficient. Affirmed, with costs to appellees.
CARR, C.J., and DETHMERS, KELLY, BLACK, KAVANAGH, and SOURIS, JJ., concurred.
O'HARA, J., took no part in the decision of this case.