Legal Opinion

Stickney v. Parmenter

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1876PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal in Chancery from Mecosta Circuit.

1Opinion of the Court

Cooley, Ch. J.:

In this ease the specific performance of a contract for the sale of lands is resisted by the assignee of the vendor on the ground that the vendees had forfeited the contract by taking off timber from the land in violation of its conditions. The fact is admitted, but it is sought to be justified by a parol agreement with the vendor that the vendees might cut the timber in consideration of hastening the time for the payment of the purchase price. This agreement, if made at all, was made before the contract of sale was assigned, and was unknown to the assignee and unperformed at…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Rothenberg v. FollmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. Jones v. BerkeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Haven v. Beidler Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1879
  4. Hubbell v. OhlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  5. John v. McNealMichigan Supreme Court · 1911

2 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