Satterlee v. Cronkhite
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent; Adsit, J. Assumpsit by Ophelia Satterlee against Woolsey Cronkhite to recover payments made upon a land contract. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
Plaintiff, by the direction of the court to the jury, recovered' a judgment for money paid upon a land contract, from which judgment defendant appeals.
October 10, 1892, the plaintiff and her sister made a *635contract with defendant for the purchase of certain real estate for the sum of $4,000, $250 to be paid upon delivery of the contract, and $20 a month thereafter. This contract had a forfeiture clause in case of default, which provided:
“Should such default continue for 30 days, then, that is to say, after the lapse of said 30 days, said party of the first part may declare this contract…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lowrie v. GourlayMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by8 opinions
- Helm v. RoneSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Pfeiffer v. NormanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Hall v. YaryanIdaho Supreme Court · 1914
- Niman v. Story & Clark Piano Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Miller v. Fletcher Savings & Trust Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.