Minto v. Davie

215 N.W. 360, 240 Mich. 406, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 907
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 3, 1927
DocketDocket No. 4.
StatusPublished

This text of 215 N.W. 360 (Minto v. Davie) 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
Minto v. Davie, 215 N.W. 360, 240 Mich. 406, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 907 (Mich. 1927).

Opinion

Clark, J.

Plaintiffs’ bill for specific performance of a land contract was dismissed and they have appealed. Wyoming Land Company had record title to the lot in question. Grace M. Langley was a contract purchaser. On April 11, 1923, defendants Davie *407 entered into a contract to sell the lot to plaintiffs for $9,450 and to erect a dwelling house thereon. As a down payment plaintiffs transferred to the Davies an equity in other property. On April 25, 1928, Mr. Davie entered into a contract with Grace M. Langley to purchase the lot for $1,200, and he paid down $200. Neither of these contracts was recorded. The Davies did not put up the dwelling, except the foundation. On May 3, 1923, Mr. and Mrs. Davie, by assignment indorsed on the contract with Grace M. Langley, transferred the same for $250 to the interveners Currier. Subsequently Grace M. Langley began summary proceeding against Mr. and Mrs. Davie and had judgment.' On the last day Mr. Currier paid to the commissioner the whole amount found due, $1,262.01.

The trial court found that the interveners purchased from the defendants in good faith and without knowledge or notice of plaintiffs’ claim, and we find no evidence to the contrary. But appellants contend that Leo S. Schrot acted as attorney for Mr. Currier in the matter and that evidence that Mr. Schrot had knowledge and notice of plaintiffs’ claim is sufficient to charge interveners with like knowledge and notice. But the record shows clearly that Mr. Schrot was attorney for Mr. Davie, not for interveners, and therefore the contention fails.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to interveners against appellants.

Sharpe, C. J., and Bird, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 N.W. 360, 240 Mich. 406, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minto-v-davie-mich-1927.