Fry v. Miller

Michigan Supreme Court

Fry v. Miller

190 N.W. 228, 220 Mich. 463, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 921

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1922

DocketDocket No. 36

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 190 N.W. 228 (Fry v. Miller) 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

Fry v. Miller, 190 N.W. 228, 220 Mich. 463, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 921 (Mich. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Sharpe, J.

Plaintiff seeks specific performance of a land contract of which defendant had declared a forfeiture and given notice thereof. The contract price was $1,500. Plaintiff had paid $1,183.50. A few days after he received the notice of forfeiture, he tendered $300, and afterwards paid taxes amounting to $525.67.

In Waller v. Lieberman, 214 Mich. 428, we-approved the rule stated in 39 Cyc. p. 1384, that where a vendor has accepted past-due payments it is but equitable in case he afterwards seeks to rely on the provision for forfeiture in the contract to require him to give a notice stating the amount due and his intention to declare a forfeiture if it be not paid within a stated time, which must of course be reasonable. The trial court applied this rule and granted the relief prayed for. The proofs justified him in doing so. While the bill filed is for specific performance, we treat it as we did that in Lozon v. McKay, 203 Mich. 364, “as amended so as to ask for relief from the forfeiture.”

The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Fellows, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Clark, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.

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

Sharpe, J.

Plaintiff seeks specific performance of a land contract of which defendant had declared a forfeiture and given notice thereof. The contract price was $1,500. Plaintiff had paid $1,183.50. A few days after he received the notice of forfeiture, he tendered $300, and afterwards paid taxes amounting to $525.67.

In Waller v. Lieberman, 214 Mich. 428, we-approved the rule stated in 39 Cyc. p. 1384, that where a vendor has accepted past-due payments it is but equitable in case he afterwards seeks to rely on the provision for forfeiture in the contract to require him to give a notice stating the amount due and his intention to declare a forfeiture if it be not paid within a stated time, which must of course be reasonable. The trial court applied this rule and granted the relief prayed for. The proofs justified him in doing so. While the bill filed is for specific performance, we treat it as we did that in Lozon v. McKay, 203 Mich. 364, “as amended so as to ask for relief from the forfeiture.”

The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Fellows, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Clark, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W. 228, 220 Mich. 463, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fry-v-miller-mich-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack