Andrus v. Scudder
120 Mich. 502
Mich.
1899
Check Treatment
Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Counsel for complainant, in their brief, say that the questions involved *504are ones of fact. The sole witnesses to the agreement are the complainant and defendant John Scudder, who acted for his wife, his co-defend'ant. She personally took no part in the negotiations. The testimony of these two witnesses on every material fact is in direct conflict. Upon the facts, therefore, the result would depend upon the credit the court should give to one or the other. The court below reached the conclusion that complainant ‘ ‘ has not been able to establish the fraud by such a preponderance of evidence as entitles himself to relief.” We think the circuit judge was in a better position to decide the question of fact than we are. There was nothing unreasonable in the contract. We find nothing in the surrounding circumstances from which we can reasonably infer that complainant has a preponderance of the evidence.

Defendant Frances insists that decree should be entered in this court for the amount due, and thus obviate the necessity of resorting to the continuation of further legal proceedings. The pleadings are not framed to meet any such case. Therefore all we can do is to affirm the decree dismissing the bill.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.