Gogarn v. Connors

153 N.W. 1068, 188 Mich. 161, 1915 Mich. LEXIS 1028
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided September 28, 1915·No. Docket No. 91·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

(after stating the facts). The decree must be affirmed. The transaction — the deed and agreement — did not constitute a mortgage. Complainant had the right of election to pay or not to pay the debt, to refund or to keep the money. The remedies of the parties, were not mutual or reciprocal. The transaction must be treated as an absolute conveyance of the land with an option to- repurchase. Swetland v. Swetland, 3 Mich. 482; Emerson v. Atwater, 7 Mich. 12; Cornell v. Hall, 22 Mich. 377; Stahl v. Dehn, 72 Mich. 645 (40 N. W. 922) ; Reed v. Bond, 96 Mich. 134 (55 N. W. 619) ; Blumberg v. Beekman, 121 Mich. 647 (80 N. W. 710) ; Sowles v. Wilcox, 127 Mich. 166 (86 N. W. 689). The unmistakable intent of the parties is recited in the agreement for a reconveyance.

Defendant will recover costs.

Brooke, C. J., and Kuhn, Stone, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. The late Justice McAlvay took no part in this decision.

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

Gogarn v. Connors, 153 N.W. 1068, 188 Mich. 161, 1915 Mich. LEXIS 1028 (Mich. 1915).

153 N.W. 1068 (Gogarn v. Connors) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winkelmann v. Luebbe
38 N.W.2d 334 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1949)
McMurry v. Mercer
73 S.W.2d 1087 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Sauer v. Fischer
225 N.W. 518 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1929)
Hoyt v. Union National Bank of Wichita
222 P. 127 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1924)