Van Dyke v. Wallace

Michigan Supreme Court

Van Dyke v. Wallace

216 N.W. 929, 241 Mich. 439, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 1008

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 3, 1928

DocketDocket No. 29.

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 216 N.W. 929 (Van Dyke v. Wallace) 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

Van Dyke v. Wallace, 216 N.W. 929, 241 Mich. 439, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 1008 (Mich. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

The bill was filed to correct a deed," alleging a mutual mistake in that certain sewer taxes should have been recited and excepted in the warranty-clause. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, had decree. Defendants have appealed.

The question is one of fact arising upon a flat contradiction in testimony. Evidence of plaintiffs is to the effect that defendants were to pay such tax and that this matter was inadvertently omitted in making the deed. Evidence of defendants is to the effect that plaintiffs were to pay it and that there was no mistake in that regard. Evidence of value is in equally flat contradiction. Circumstances aid decision somewhat. Defendant William Wallace gave unsatisfactory testimony and was admonished by the court, in effect, to answer certain questions frankly and directly. The taxes were more than $5,000. Plaintiffs’ equity in the property — the difference between the sale price and the amount due from them as vendees in the land contract — was much less than the amount of the tax.

The trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony. We are not persuaded that his decision should be disturbed.

Decree affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Flannigan, C. J., and Fellows,Wiest, McDonald, Bird, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. The late Justice SNOW took no part in this decision.

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

Clark, J.

The bill was filed to correct a deed," alleging a mutual mistake in that certain sewer taxes should have been recited and excepted in the warranty-clause. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, had decree. Defendants have appealed.

The question is one of fact arising upon a flat contradiction in testimony. Evidence of plaintiffs is to the effect that defendants were to pay such tax and that this matter was inadvertently omitted in making the deed. Evidence of defendants is to the effect that plaintiffs were to pay it and that there was no mistake in that regard. Evidence of value is in equally flat contradiction. Circumstances aid decision somewhat. Defendant William Wallace gave unsatisfactory testimony and was admonished by the court, in effect, to answer certain questions frankly and directly. The taxes were more than $5,000. Plaintiffs’ equity in the property — the difference between the sale price and the amount due from them as vendees in the land contract — was much less than the amount of the tax.

The trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony. We are not persuaded that his decision should be disturbed.

Decree affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Flannigan, C. J., and Fellows,Wiest, McDonald, Bird, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. The late Justice SNOW took no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.W. 929, 241 Mich. 439, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-dyke-v-wallace-mich-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack