Grossbart v. Gilbert

Michigan Supreme Court

Grossbart v. Gilbert

110 N.W.2d 812, 364 Mich. 96, 1961 Mich. LEXIS 351

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 22, 1961

DocketDocket 65, Calendar 48,640

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 N.W.2d 812 (Grossbart v. Gilbert) 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

Grossbart v. Gilbert, 110 N.W.2d 812, 364 Mich. 96, 1961 Mich. LEXIS 351 (Mich. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Dethmers, C. J.

This is a chancery case. The entire dispute is the amount due from plaintiffs to *97 defendant on a real-estate mortgage indebtedness.' Defendant claims it is $15,000, plus interest, from December 1,1958, at 7 % per annum. The trial court found tbe amount, as of October 25, 1959, to be-$13,201.19. Prom that finding, and decree accordingly, defendant appeals.

This is a prime example of the kind of case which ought not to be here on appeal. The record discloses, from the deposition of defendant himself, admissions of payments on the mortgage indebtedness which support the trial court’s conclusions. Those payments defendant seeks to explain as having been made on another obligation due him from the mortgagor. The court found that explanation to be fantastic. An examination of defendant’s deposition and the other testimony and proofs in the case does not persuade us that had we been in the position of the trial court we would have found otherwise.

We agree with the trial court that allegations of plaintiffs in their pleadings in another case between them and third parties did not contradict plaintiffs’ position in this case and in nowise worked an estoppel against them here.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.

Caer, Kelly, Talbot Smith, Black, Edwards-,; Kavanagh, and Souris, JJ., concurred.

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

Dethmers, C. J.

This is a chancery case. The entire dispute is the amount due from plaintiffs to *97 defendant on a real-estate mortgage indebtedness.' Defendant claims it is $15,000, plus interest, from December 1,1958, at 7 % per annum. The trial court found tbe amount, as of October 25, 1959, to be-$13,201.19. Prom that finding, and decree accordingly, defendant appeals.

This is a prime example of the kind of case which ought not to be here on appeal. The record discloses, from the deposition of defendant himself, admissions of payments on the mortgage indebtedness which support the trial court’s conclusions. Those payments defendant seeks to explain as having been made on another obligation due him from the mortgagor. The court found that explanation to be fantastic. An examination of defendant’s deposition and the other testimony and proofs in the case does not persuade us that had we been in the position of the trial court we would have found otherwise.

We agree with the trial court that allegations of plaintiffs in their pleadings in another case between them and third parties did not contradict plaintiffs’ position in this case and in nowise worked an estoppel against them here.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.

Caer, Kelly, Talbot Smith, Black, Edwards-,; Kavanagh, and Souris, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 N.W.2d 812, 364 Mich. 96, 1961 Mich. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grossbart-v-gilbert-mich-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack