Robulus v. American State Bank

Michigan Supreme Court

Robulus v. American State Bank

241 N.W. 831, 258 Mich. 21, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1209

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1932

DocketDocket No. 121, Calendar No. 36,210.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 N.W. 831 (Robulus v. American State Bank) 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

Robulus v. American State Bank, 241 N.W. 831, 258 Mich. 21, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1209 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

McDonald, J.

This bill was filed to have a foreclosure sale and sheriff’s deed set aside bn the ground that the plaintiff, one of the mortgagors, was not served with notice of the proceedings. On motion of defendants the bill was dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed.

The mortgage was given by the plaintiff and Leonidas Polites, both residents of the city of Detroit but the mortgaged property is located in the city of Dearborn. Foreclosure was by -advertise *22 ment. There is no charge in the bill that, in the proceedings, the statute was not strictly followed. No irregularity, is charged. The sole theory of the plaintiff’s case is that he was not served with notice of foreclosure, and that he supposed the mortgagee would not undertake such proceedings without notifying him.

The mortgage contained the usual power of sale. The statute authorizing foreclosure by advertisement does not require actual notice to the mortgagor. It only provides for publication and the posting of notice on the premises. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14427. As the plaintiff bases his case solely on the ground that he received no actual notice, his bill was properly dismissed.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

McDonald, J.

This bill was filed to have a foreclosure sale and sheriff’s deed set aside bn the ground that the plaintiff, one of the mortgagors, was not served with notice of the proceedings. On motion of defendants the bill was dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed.

The mortgage was given by the plaintiff and Leonidas Polites, both residents of the city of Detroit but the mortgaged property is located in the city of Dearborn. Foreclosure was by -advertise *22 ment. There is no charge in the bill that, in the proceedings, the statute was not strictly followed. No irregularity, is charged. The sole theory of the plaintiff’s case is that he was not served with notice of foreclosure, and that he supposed the mortgagee would not undertake such proceedings without notifying him.

The mortgage contained the usual power of sale. The statute authorizing foreclosure by advertisement does not require actual notice to the mortgagor. It only provides for publication and the posting of notice on the premises. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14427. As the plaintiff bases his case solely on the ground that he received no actual notice, his bill was properly dismissed.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W. 831, 258 Mich. 21, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robulus-v-american-state-bank-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack