Canham v. Mooney
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Sanilac. (Beach, J.) Bill to enforce specific performance .of parol contract for sale of land. Complainant appeals from decree dismissing bill.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sanilac. (Beach, J.) Bill to enforce specific performance .of parol contract for sale of land. Complainant appeals from decree dismissing bill. The facts are stated in the opinion. .1. Complainant, having purchased and paid the full consideration for the property in question, and placed valuable improvements thereon, is entitled to a specific performance of the contract on the part of defendant; citing Gilley v. Burkholder, 41 Mich. 749; Bomier v. Galdiuell, 8 Id. 463; Burteh v. Hogge, Har. Ch. 31; and a conveyance of the land is the only adequate remedy; damages cannot compensate…
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
Complainant claims that on April 15, 1886, he purchased of defendant lots 45 and 49 of the defendant's plat of a part of the village of Minden City, in the county of Sanilac, and also a strip of land lying between said lots and lands occupied by the Port Huron & Northwestern Railway Company as a right of way for its railroad. The agreement was an oral one, and the complainant was to pay defendant the sum of $250 in full of said purchase. Immediately after the contract .of purchase, complainant entered- into possession of the lots, and erected thereon a brick store, costing $2,500. He also…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Wilson v. Louisiana Purchase Exposition CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Love v. FiltschSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- State ex rel. Young v. HolgateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- J. D. Hollingshead Co. v. Board of Control of State InstitutionsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923
- State Ex Rel. R-1 School District of Putnam County v. EwingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.