Smith v. Hubert Land Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Smith v. Hubert Land Co.

246 N.W. 183, 261 Mich. 464, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 786

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 3, 1933

DocketDocket No. 48, Calendar No. 36,733.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 246 N.W. 183 (Smith v. Hubert Land Co.) 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

Smith v. Hubert Land Co., 246 N.W. 183, 261 Mich. 464, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 786 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

Plaintiff, purchaser in an executory land contract, rescinded and sued at law, and had judgment in a trial without a jury. Defendant has appealed.

The remainder of the purchase price was due and payable. Plaintiff learned that defendant did not have good title, that its interest or equity was incumbered in an amount largely in excess of the remainder due on the contract. He talked with defendant’s president, who asked time, a week or ten days. Plaintiff replied it might have 30 days. In 32 days plaintiff returned, to find nothing done and to receive from defendant’s president the statement, “I have not seen that man yet, but I will see him some time.”

Plaintiff tendered reconveyance, and demanded return of what had been paid and was refused. This suit followed.

*466 It would have been entirely useless for plaintiff to have tendered the remainder due on the contract and to have demanded a deed. The law will not indulge in or require idle formalities. Bugajski v. Siwka, 200 Mich. 415.

After rescission and after action at law had been commenced, defendant tendered deed. It came too late. Going v. Oakland County Agricultural Society, 117 Mich. 230.

A third question is attempted, but it is beside the record and merits no discussion.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, J.

Plaintiff, purchaser in an executory land contract, rescinded and sued at law, and had judgment in a trial without a jury. Defendant has appealed.

The remainder of the purchase price was due and payable. Plaintiff learned that defendant did not have good title, that its interest or equity was incumbered in an amount largely in excess of the remainder due on the contract. He talked with defendant’s president, who asked time, a week or ten days. Plaintiff replied it might have 30 days. In 32 days plaintiff returned, to find nothing done and to receive from defendant’s president the statement, “I have not seen that man yet, but I will see him some time.”

Plaintiff tendered reconveyance, and demanded return of what had been paid and was refused. This suit followed.

*466 It would have been entirely useless for plaintiff to have tendered the remainder due on the contract and to have demanded a deed. The law will not indulge in or require idle formalities. Bugajski v. Siwka, 200 Mich. 415.

After rescission and after action at law had been commenced, defendant tendered deed. It came too late. Going v. Oakland County Agricultural Society, 117 Mich. 230.

A third question is attempted, but it is beside the record and merits no discussion.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 N.W. 183, 261 Mich. 464, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hubert-land-co-mich-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack