Disbrow v. Jones
Michigan Court of Chancery
r This was a motion to dissolve an injunction. The facts in the case, as appdar from the bill, and answers of Jones and John L. Whiting, two of the defendants, are as follows: De Garmo Jones was owner of lots No. 186 and 187, in section four, in the city of Detroit; and February 1, 1832, he demised the same, with the warehouse thereon, to John L. Whiting and John J. Deming, for the term of five years, at a rent of #600 per year, payable quarterly.
Read the full summary
r This was a motion to dissolve an injunction. The facts in the case, as appdar from the bill, and answers of Jones and John L. Whiting, two of the defendants, are as follows: De Garmo Jones was owner of lots No. 186 and 187, in section four, in the city of Detroit; and February 1, 1832, he demised the same, with the warehouse thereon, to John L. Whiting and John J. Deming, for the term of five years, at a rent of #600 per year, payable quarterly. The lessees covenanted in the lease to keep the warehouse on the premises insured against loss or damage by fire, for not less than #2,500, in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
In the argument of this motion, it has been urged on the part of the complainant, that' Jones, having put it in th'e power of his vendees to commit a fraud upon the complainants, he is responsible for the consequences.
I am unable to see any thing in this case to authorize this position in the argument. There is no showing that goes to charge Jones with fraud.
At the time of the execution and delivery of the conveyance by Jones, to Thompson arid others, Whiting was in possession and occupied the premises under the lease from Jones, and the vendees all knew that fact. Whiting was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Grimstone v. CarterNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thompson v. DavitteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
- Broadwell v. NixonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1817