Legal Opinion

Smith v. Ebert

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1936No. Docket No. 108, Calendar No. 38,438Published

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, C. J.

Plaintiffs as grantees and assignees held title to a parcel of land and the vendors’ interest in a land contract under which defendant as assignee held the vendee’s interest. After continuing for approximately six years to make the contract payments to plaintiffs the defendant defaulted; and thereupon plaintiffs brought this suit at law to recover the unpaid monthly instalments. The defense urged was that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover in the action at law because there was no privity of contract between the parties nor was there novation. Prom judgment for plaintiffs the defendant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Harrington-Wiard Co. v. Blomstrom Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Epworth Assembly v. Ludington & Northern RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Tapert v. SchultzMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Husted v. PogueMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Copeman v. TakkenMichigan Supreme Court · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API