Legal Opinion

Clark v. Muirhead

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1928No. Docket No. 69, Calendar No. 33,903PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

Defendants gave plaintiff an option to purchase certain real estate in the county of Oakland. It provided for acceptance in writing by h specified date. It was not so accepted. This bill is filed for specific performance. Plaintiff’s counsel concede that “the provision must be complied with unless that form of acceptance is waived.”

It appears that on several occasions before the time for acceptance had expired the plaintiff tendered to the defendant Richard Muirhead the payment specified in the option to be made on the acceptance thereof and demanded a contract pursuant to its terms.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Crolius v. LorgeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Jones v. SowersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Davidson v. WyattOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Hultberg v. City of GarrisonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Epton v. CBC CORP.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1964
  4. Harmon v. MuirheadMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Pleger v. BouwmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API