Dickens v. Detroit Estates Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Dickens v. Detroit Estates Corp.

256 Mich. 127

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1931

DocketDocket No. 25, Calendar No. 34,979

StatusPublished

This text of 256 Mich. 127 (Dickens v. Detroit Estates Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickens v. Detroit Estates Corp., 256 Mich. 127 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Fead, J.

This is a companion case to Pittelkow Heating & Engineering Co. v. Detroit Estates Corporation, ante, 116, and Hall v. Detroit Estates Corporation, ante, 121, in which the essential facts are stated. The relief here sought by plaintiff is, in general, the setting aside of the present situation and the reinstatement of the former condition, including revival of the original trust mortgage, that the Sisman stockholders be declared bondholders, and defendants be required to pay the money and do the acts necessary to reproduce the situation contemplated and represented at the time plaintiff became a bondholder. The bill recites the call of his bonds, and, as he is thereby offered all the relief to which he is entitled, and the relief is in accordance with his contract on purchasing the bonds, he has not alleged a cause for further remedy.

Decree dismissing bill is affirmed, with costs.

Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and North, JJ., concurred. Butzel, C. J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fead, J.

This is a companion case to Pittelkow Heating & Engineering Co. v. Detroit Estates Corporation, ante, 116, and Hall v. Detroit Estates Corporation, ante, 121, in which the essential facts are stated. The relief here sought by plaintiff is, in general, the setting aside of the present situation and the reinstatement of the former condition, including revival of the original trust mortgage, that the Sisman stockholders be declared bondholders, and defendants be required to pay the money and do the acts necessary to reproduce the situation contemplated and represented at the time plaintiff became a bondholder. The bill recites the call of his bonds, and, as he is thereby offered all the relief to which he is entitled, and the relief is in accordance with his contract on purchasing the bonds, he has not alleged a cause for further remedy.

Decree dismissing bill is affirmed, with costs.

Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and North, JJ., concurred. Butzel, C. J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 Mich. 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickens-v-detroit-estates-corp-mich-1931.