Reed v. Ismond
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Eaton; Smith., J. Assumpsit by Mary D. Reed against Oscar C. Ismond for the value of a lot alleged to have been fraudulently omitted from a deed.
Read the full summary
Error to Eaton; Smith., J. Assumpsit by Mary D. Reed against Oscar C. Ismond for the value of a lot alleged to have been fraudulently omitted from a deed. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. • On April 4, 1895, the plaintiff, being the owner of a stock of goods situated in Eagle, Clinton county, and the defendant, being the owner of certain lots of land in the city of Battle Creek, entered into a written contract, the material part of which reads as follows: ‘! The said party of the first part agrees to execute and deliver to the said second party, on or before the 11th day…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). The position of the plaintiff is that, though the contract described lot 50, yet that was not in fact the land contracted for, but that plaintiff in fact purchased the lot pointed out to her as lot 50; that such representations were warranties, and as such were a part of the contract; and that the tort can be waived, and an action of assumpsit maintained. We cannot concur in this view. The case is ruled by Emerson v. Spring Co., 100 Mich 133, Bedier v. Fuller, 106 Mich. 342, and Warnes v. Brubaker, 107 Mich. 440.
Judgment reversed, and no new trial ordered.
The other…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Emerson v. Detroit Steel & Spring Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Warnes v. BrubakerMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Bedier v. FullerMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by4 opinions
- Draft v. HesselsweetMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Mestler v. JeffriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Roszczewski v. JozwiakMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Hakes v. MacklinMichigan Supreme Court · 1912