Hoard v. Stone
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Lapeer. (Stickney, J.) Bill to reform lease. Complainant appeals. "Where suits have been dismissed for laches it is because important witnesses have passed away or innocent third parties have acquired rights: Campan v. VanDyhe 15 Mich. 371; Bus-sell v. Miller 26 Mich. 1; Ilarlow v. Lake Superior Iron Co. 41 Mich. 583; but where defendant is not placed in any different position by lapse of time laches will- not be considered : Allore v. Jewell 94 IT.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lapeer. (Stickney, J.) Bill to reform lease. Complainant appeals. "Where suits have been dismissed for laches it is because important witnesses have passed away or innocent third parties have acquired rights: Campan v. VanDyhe 15 Mich. 371; Bus-sell v. Miller 26 Mich. 1; Ilarlow v. Lake Superior Iron Co. 41 Mich. 583; but where defendant is not placed in any different position by lapse of time laches will- not be considered : Allore v. Jewell 94 IT. S. 506; Sullivan v. Railroad id. 811; Wollaston v. Tribe L. R. 9 Eq. 44 ; May v. leClaire 11 Wall. 217; Hatch v. Hatch 9 Yes. 292. .…
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
The bill was filed in the court below on the 19th day of July, 1883, to compel the reformation and correction of a written lease executed between the parties and bearing date April 14, 1872. Complainant alleges that on or about the 14th day of April, 1872, she entered into an oral contract with the defendant, in which she agreed to lease to him, for five dollars a year, a certain lot of land, twenty by thirty feet in size, situated in Lapeer county, for and *580during the time lie personally occupied the building as a physician’s office, at an annual rental of five dollars; that if, at any time…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dabits v. HauserMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- In Re Thomas EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1954