Shannon v. Gull Lake Ass'n

Michigan Court of Appeals

Shannon v. Gull Lake Ass'n

11 Mich. App. 644

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 Mich. App. 644 (Shannon v. Gull Lake Ass'n) 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

Shannon v. Gull Lake Ass'n, 11 Mich. App. 644 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.,

Plaintiff, appeals a judgment of no cause of action for specific performance of an agreement to sell real estate. Two contracts are involved, the first dated July 21, 1961, and the second February 12, 1963. The trial court found that the second contract superseded the first contract, and that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the second contract because of his failure to meet his, contractual obligations , thereunder. A review of the record fails to convince us we would have reached a different result had we sat as the trial court.

Specific performance is not a remedy of right but rests in the sound discretion of the court. Rose v. Gilbert (1948), 320 Mich 455. This record demonstrates no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.,

Plaintiff, appeals a judgment of no cause of action for specific performance of an agreement to sell real estate. Two contracts are involved, the first dated July 21, 1961, and the second February 12, 1963. The trial court found that the second contract superseded the first contract, and that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the second contract because of his failure to meet his, contractual obligations , thereunder. A review of the record fails to convince us we would have reached a different result had we sat as the trial court.

Specific performance is not a remedy of right but rests in the sound discretion of the court. Rose v. Gilbert (1948), 320 Mich 455. This record demonstrates no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed, with costs to defendant.

Burns, P. J., and Quinn and Ziem, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Mich. App. 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shannon-v-gull-lake-assn-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack