Tiedemann v. Kroll
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Wayne; Hosmer, J. Bill by Charles Tiedemann against Charles Kroll, John Kroll, and the Stanton Farm Company, Limited, in aid of an execution, and for the specific performance of a land contract. Defendant John Kroll filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill to set aside a sheriff’s deed. From a decree dismissing the bill and granting the prayer of the cross-bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wayne; Hosmer, J. Bill by Charles Tiedemann against Charles Kroll, John Kroll, and the Stanton Farm Company, Limited, in aid of an execution, and for the specific performance of a land contract. Defendant John Kroll filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill to set aside a sheriff’s deed. From a decree dismissing the bill and granting the prayer of the cross-bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed. Complainant recovered a verdict and judgment before a justice of the peace on April 2, 1896, against defendant, Charles Kroll, for $227.25. Charles was then the owner of lot 532 in fee…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). It appears conceded that as to lot 532 the title to which was in Charlea Kroll, the decree is correct, as it was his homestead. Complainant knew at the time of the sale that the title to lot 533 was not in defendant Charles Kroll. The record title at that time was in the defendant Stanton Farm Company, Limited. It was clearly the duty of complainant to proceed within a year after the sale. Daniel v. Palmer, 124 Mich. 335; Kunze v. Solomon, 126 Mich. 290, and authorities there cited.
Decree is affirmed, with costs.
Blair, Montgomery, Ostrander, and Hooker, JJ.„…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Daniel v. PalmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Kunze v. SolomonMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gordon v. Township of BurleighMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
- State ex rel. Finger v. WeedmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929