Wendt v. McGuire

Michigan Supreme Court

Wendt v. McGuire

160 N.W. 540, 194 Mich. 453, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 534

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1916

DocketDocket No. 57

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 N.W. 540 (Wendt v. McGuire) 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

Wendt v. McGuire, 160 N.W. 540, 194 Mich. 453, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 534 (Mich. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOkE, J.

(after stating the facts). All the errors assigned may be considered together. The underlying question for determination is whether, when the plaintiff started his replevin suit, he was entitled to the possession of the property in question. At that time he had bought the property from defendant, he had sold it to defendant’s father, had received from the defendant’s father the purchase price agreed upon between them, and had delivered possession of the property to defendant’s father, Thomas C. McGuire. His sole right to repossess himself of the property in question after the consummation of that transaction must rest upon a repudiation of the contract made between himself and Thomas C. McGuire upon the ground of fraud. If plaintiff sought to disaffirm that contract upon that ground, it was his manifest duty first to pay or tender to Thomas C. McGuire the money received from him as consideration for delivery of the property to him. Morrison v. Berry, 42 Mich. 389 (4 N. W. 731, 36 Am. Rep. 446); Pangborn v. Insurance Co., 67 Mich. 683 (35 N. W. 814); Hubbard v. Oliver, 173 Mich. 337 (139 N. W. 77); Kimble v. Gillard, 177 Mich. 250 (143 N. W. 79).

Judgment affirmed.

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Ostrander, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. Person, J., did not sit.

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

BROOkE, J.

(after stating the facts). All the errors assigned may be considered together. The underlying question for determination is whether, when the plaintiff started his replevin suit, he was entitled to the possession of the property in question. At that time he had bought the property from defendant, he had sold it to defendant’s father, had received from the defendant’s father the purchase price agreed upon between them, and had delivered possession of the property to defendant’s father, Thomas C. McGuire. His sole right to repossess himself of the property in question after the consummation of that transaction must rest upon a repudiation of the contract made between himself and Thomas C. McGuire upon the ground of fraud. If plaintiff sought to disaffirm that contract upon that ground, it was his manifest duty first to pay or tender to Thomas C. McGuire the money received from him as consideration for delivery of the property to him. Morrison v. Berry, 42 Mich. 389 (4 N. W. 731, 36 Am. Rep. 446); Pangborn v. Insurance Co., 67 Mich. 683 (35 N. W. 814); Hubbard v. Oliver, 173 Mich. 337 (139 N. W. 77); Kimble v. Gillard, 177 Mich. 250 (143 N. W. 79).

Judgment affirmed.

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Ostrander, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. Person, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 N.W. 540, 194 Mich. 453, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wendt-v-mcguire-mich-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack