pecuniary standard in Michigan

1960E.g., Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich 180, 191 , 192: “For myself, I think * * * that the reason of the rule is to be found in that natural and almost universal repugnance among enlightened nations to setting a price upon human life, or any attempt to estimate its value by a pecuniary standard, a repugnance which seems to have been strong and prevalent among nations in proportion as they have been or become more enlightened and refined, and especially so where the Christian religion has exercised its most beneficent influence, and where human life has been held most sacred.

1960Co., 125 La 542 (51 So 582, 136 Am St Rep 339). [22] E.g., Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich 180, 191 , 192: "For myself, I think * * * that the reason of the rule is to be found in that natural and almost universal repugnance among enlightened nations to setting a price upon human life, or any attempt to estimate its value by a pecuniary standard, a repugnance which seems to have been strong and prevalent among nations in proportion as they have been or become more enlightened and refined, and especially so where the Christian religion has exercised its most beneficent influence, and where human life h

1902Cooley, Torts, 271, and cases cited in note 2.” See, also, Rajnowski v. Railroad Co., 74 Mich. 20 ( 41 N. W. 847 ); Hurst v. Railway, 84 Mich. 539 ( 48 N. W. 44 .

1902Cooley, Torts, 271, and cases cited in note 2.” See, also, Rajnowski v. Railroad Co., 74 Mich. 20 ( 41 N. W. 847 ); Hurst v. Railway, 84 Mich. 539 ( 48 N. W. 44 .

1902Cooley, Torts, 271, and cases cited in note 2.” See, also, Rajnowski v. Railroad Co., 74 Mich. 20 ( 41 N. W. 847 ); Hurst v. Railway, 84 Mich. 539 ( 48 N. W. 44 .

1902Cooley, Torts, 271, and cases cited in note 2.” See, also, Rajnowski v. Railroad Co., 74 Mich. 20 ( 41 N. W. 847 ); Hurst v. Railway, 84 Mich. 539 ( 48 N. W. 44 .

1895The statute gives the right to damages; but it has been held, with rare exceptions, that they must be confined to those damages which are capable of being measured by a pecuniary standard.” See, also, Mynning v. Railroad Co., 59 Mich. 257 . 1 We are aware that some courts have held that the jury may take into account the loss sustained by the children of the deceased for loss of physical care and mental and moral training of the father or mother; and we are not prepared to say that cases may not arise in which there may be sufficient proof of damages suffered by reason of the withdrawal of the

1894It is there said: “Notwithstanding that it is the established rule in Ohio that the payment of the consideration, even in the personal services of the party seeking relief, does not ordinarily constitute such part performance as will take a case out of the operation of the statute of frauds, we do not wish to be understood to hold that cases may not arise wherein specific performance of a contract in parol may be had on the ground that the consideration had been paid in personal services not intended to be, and not susceptible of being, measured by a pecuniary standard.’’ This doctrine is also

1894We are aware that the principle laid down here is not supported in Wallace v. Rappleye, 103 Ill. 229 , and Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind. 522 , and some other Illinois and Indiana cases, as well as in Shearer v. Weaver, 56 Iowa, 578 ) but we think the better reasons support the conclusions reached by the New Jersey court.

1894We are aware that the principle laid down here is not supported in Wallace v. Rappleye, 103 Ill. 229 , and Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind. 522 , and some other Illinois and Indiana cases, as well as in Shearer v. Weaver, 56 Iowa, 578 ) but we think the better reasons support the conclusions reached by the New Jersey court.

1894We are aware that the principle laid down here is not supported in Wallace v. Rappleye, 103 Ill. 229 , and Wallace v. Long, 105 Ind. 522 , and some other Illinois and Indiana cases, as well as in Shearer v. Weaver, 56 Iowa, 578 ) but we think the better reasons support the conclusions reached by the New Jersey court.