Legal Opinion

Platt v. Newman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1888PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.) Assumpsit on land contract to recover purchase price on tender of deed, etc. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

On July 14, 1887, the plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant a brick store and appurtenances in Niles, described as—

“ Being the same devised to him by his father, and being the store next west to the store owned by William E. Platt, and which is now being repaired,”—

for the sum of ,$4,125 cash down.

Plaintiff further covenanted—

*114“ To furnish an abstract of said property and premises, and to give a good and sufficient warranty deed of the same, and to convey the same to said Newman free and ’ clear of all incumbrances.”

It was further agreed that Newman should have one-half of the east and west…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. MacLeod v. HamiltonMichigan Supreme Court · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API