Wright v. Peet

36 Mich. 213, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 107
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided April 11, 1877·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Cooley, Ch. J:

The defendant seeks to reduce the amount of a purchase money mortgage by showing that he was defrauded in the purchase by false representations regarding the lands and crops thereon. The purchase was made in 1867, and the mortgage was not given until 1872. As defendant had possession of the premises immediately after the purchase, he discovered at once any deception that had been practiced upon him, and his duty was to make prompt complaint. So far from doing so, he made no complaint until after the giving of the mortgage. That was too late.—DeArmand v. Phillips, Walk. Ch., 186; Whiting v. Hill, 23 Mich., 399.

Some question is made regarding an item of expenses included in the computation of amount due, but this seems to have been agreed upon by stipulation.

Decree affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Wright v. Peet, 36 Mich. 213, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 107 (Mich. 1877).

36 Mich. 213 (Wright v. Peet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gloeser v. Moore
278 N.W. 781 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Koffman v. I. O. O. F. Lodge No. 418
275 N.W. 648 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1937)
Storrs v. Storrs
178 So. 841 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Damm v. Vincent
163 N.W. 877 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1917)
Hakes v. Thayer
131 N.W. 174 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Eames v. Manley
80 N.W. 15 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Higgins v. Lansingh
40 N.E. 362 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)
Krueger v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad
51 Mich. 142 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1883)