EVIDENCE - OFFICE CUSTOM TO PROVE FACT OF MAILING

Authors

R. J. Nordstrom S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiff agreed to purchase land from defendant by a contract in which it was stipulated that the performance of the mechanics of purchase would be completed through a third party, Webster. Plaintiff deposited the purchase money with Webster with instructions to deliver it to defendant only after he (Webster) had, inter alia, procured a policy of title insurance. Webster absconded with the funds. In a suit to determine the incidence of loss, plaintiff sought to prove that Webster had procured the policy before he absconded and therefore held the purchase money as agent for defendant. The proof that plaintiff relied upon to establish that Webster had received such a policy was: (1) that X Insurance Company had received an application from Webster for insurance and that the policy had been properly filled out; and (2) that it was the office custom of X Insurance Company to mail such policies when completed. Defendant claimed there had been insufficient proof of mailing. The lower court rendered judgment for defendant. On appeal, held, affirmed. Proof of an office custom with respect to mailing is insufficient to prove posting without establishing compliance with that custom in the specific instance. Lieb v. Webster, (Wash. 1948) 190 P. (2d) 701.

Recommended Citation

R. J. Nordstrom S.Ed., EVIDENCE - OFFICE CUSTOM TO PROVE FACT OF MAILING, 47 Mich. L. Rev. 420 (1949).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss3/18