Legal Opinion

Zeidler v. Burlingame

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1932No. Docket No. 133, Calendar No. 36,774PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.

Defendant Suffrin reviews decree for deficiency against him on foreclosure of two land contracts. As the contracts are identical upon the issues here, we will speak in the singular for convenience.

The contract, executed in 1923, runs from plaintiff and wife, the latter since deceased, to defendants Burlingame, and provides:

“It is further agreed, by the parties hereto, that the said parties of the second part shall not assign this contract without the consent of the parties of the first part being first indorsed in writing hereon and on the duplicate copy hereof held by the parties of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Barnard v. HuffMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Maday v. RothMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Hamburger v. RussellMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Distasio v. GervasioMichigan Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Allen v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  2. McGuffin v. BaumhaftUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API