Lozon v. McKay
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Ogemaw; Sharpe, J. Bill by Archie Lozon and another against James McKay for the specific performance of a land contract. Defendant filed a cross-bill to set aside the contract for default. From a decree for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, C. J.
The contract, the subject-matter of this suit, had been forfeited, pursuant to its terms, after the admitted default of the vendees. The vendees, plaintiffs, ask the court to specifically enforce the contract. It is not true that defendant is asking equity to assist him in forfeiting the rights of plaintiffs. Forfeiture was accomplished before the bill was filed. Unless plaintiffs are relieved, defendant’s right to the decree which was rendered is clear. Pendill v. Mining Co., 64 Mich. 172.
Plaintiffs do not, in terms, ask the court to relieve them of the forfeiture, which of course must be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pendill v. Union Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by15 opinions
- Waller v. LiebermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Chicago Boulevard Land Co. v. Apartment GaragesMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Rothenberg v. FollmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
- Hull v. HostettlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Security Investment Co. v. MeisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.