Russell & Co. v. Bondie
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Chambers, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. Where a mortgage contains no express covenant for the payment of the amount, and no note or other separate instrument is giren to secure payment, the mortgagee’s remedy is confined to the land mentioned in the mortgage: Coinp. L. § 4207-8; Howe, v. Lemon 37 Mich. 164.
1Opinion of the Court
Geavbs, O. J.
The plaintiff company, described as an Ohio corporation, sued Bondie on the common counts, and the circuit judge directed a verdict in his favor.
The purpose of the action was to recover a portion of the purchase price of a threshing-machine which Bondie had purchased of the company by means of an order which its agents had procured from him. A copy is given below.* *78Tbe body was a printed blank which the plaintiff had prepared for general use, to be filled up and modified in .separate cases according to the view's of the parties. As here shaped and executed on the 9th of June,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lipschitz v. Napa Fruit Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
- United States v. Four Parcels of LandDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1937
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Morton CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Thompson v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
- Guardian Depositors Corp. v. WagnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938