Port Investment Co. v. Anderson

Michigan Court of Appeals

Port Investment Co. v. Anderson

178 N.W.2d 157, 23 Mich. App. 103, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1808

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1970

DocketDocket No. 7,314

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 N.W.2d 157 (Port Investment Co. v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Port Investment Co. v. Anderson, 178 N.W.2d 157, 23 Mich. App. 103, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1808 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff and defendant Clara Anderson entered into a contract whereby defendant Anderson agreed to sell a parcel of property to plaintiff for $7,000. Before the consummation of the agreement Anderson sold the property to defendant Peczynski for $7,000. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the contract claiming Peczynski was not a good-faith purchaser, but had knowledge of the prior contract. It asked in the alternative that it be awarded damages if the court found Peczynski was a good-faith purchaser.

The trial court found that Peczynski was a good-faith purchaser, and the record contains sufficient facts to uphold the decision. This Court will not disturb the findings of a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. G-CR 1963, 517.1; Sears Roebuck & Company v. Thomas (1966), 3 Mich App 539.

The trial court further found that defendant Anderson broke the contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to the difference between the contract price and the value of the property at the time the agreement was breached. The contract price was $7,000 and the value as determined by the sale price to Mrs. Peczynski was $7,000. Therefore the plaintiff was not awarded any damages. The trial court correctly applied the law in the present case. Zimmerman v. Miller (1919), 206 Mich 599; Craine v. Miller (1927), 240 Mich 357; Bucuss v. Schuler (1931), 254 Mich 690.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff and defendant Clara Anderson entered into a contract whereby defendant Anderson agreed to sell a parcel of property to plaintiff for $7,000. Before the consummation of the agreement Anderson sold the property to defendant Peczynski for $7,000. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the contract claiming Peczynski was not a good-faith purchaser, but had knowledge of the prior contract. It asked in the alternative that it be awarded damages if the court found Peczynski was a good-faith purchaser.

The trial court found that Peczynski was a good-faith purchaser, and the record contains sufficient facts to uphold the decision. This Court will not disturb the findings of a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. G-CR 1963, 517.1; Sears Roebuck & Company v. Thomas (1966), 3 Mich App 539.

The trial court further found that defendant Anderson broke the contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to the difference between the contract price and the value of the property at the time the agreement was breached. The contract price was $7,000 and the value as determined by the sale price to Mrs. Peczynski was $7,000. Therefore the plaintiff was not awarded any damages. The trial court correctly applied the law in the present case. Zimmerman v. Miller (1919), 206 Mich 599; Craine v. Miller (1927), 240 Mich 357; Bucuss v. Schuler (1931), 254 Mich 690.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.W.2d 157, 23 Mich. App. 103, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/port-investment-co-v-anderson-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack