Legal Opinion

Morris v. Hoyt

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1862PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal in Chancery from Saginaw Circuit. Bill for specific performance. It sets forth, that on the 24th clay of February, 1854, Alfred M. Hoyt, being. then the owner in fee of lots four to thirteen inclusive, in block three of the village of East Saginaw, by his agreement in writing, contracted to sell said lots to complainant for $3,000, to be paid as follows: $100 at the date of the contract (which was duly paid), $725 August 1, 1854, $725 August 1, 1855, $725 August 1,…

Read the full summary

Appeal in Chancery from Saginaw Circuit. Bill for specific performance. It sets forth, that on the 24th clay of February, 1854, Alfred M. Hoyt, being. then the owner in fee of lots four to thirteen inclusive, in block three of the village of East Saginaw, by his agreement in writing, contracted to sell said lots to complainant for $3,000, to be paid as follows: $100 at the date of the contract (which was duly paid), $725 August 1, 1854, $725 August 1, 1855, $725 August 1, 1856, and $725 August 1, 1857, with interest on all unpaid sums at the time of each payment; and that complainant agreed…

1Opinion of the Court

Christiancy J.:

A preliminary objection is urged by the appellants, that the bill is multifarious, inasmuch as it prays relief against Jesse Hoyt and Curtis Emerson, who are not parties to the contract. We see no ground for this objection. There is. but one subject matter; and as by the bill it appears that Jesse Hoyt and Emerson had or claimed- to have an interest in the property, obtained from Alfred M. Hoyt, the contractor, after the date of the contract, and with notice of complainant’s rights, they would seem, upon the case made by the bill, to be necessary parties.

The merits of the case…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. Ashurst v. PeckSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  2. Waller v. LiebermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Rothenberg v. FollmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  4. Security Savings Co. v. MackenzieOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Harrington v. BirdsallNebraska Supreme Court · 1893

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API