Prochaska v. Fox
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by Yincent W. Procbaska against Harry J. Fox for money had and received. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error. B. & L. owned some vacant lots in the city of Detroit. They leased them to P. for a display of fireworks. P. appears to have subleased to defendant, who leased to plaintiff the bar privileges for a period of two weeks, July 14th to July 36th.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by Yincent W. Procbaska against Harry J. Fox for money had and received. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error. B. & L. owned some vacant lots in the city of Detroit. They leased them to P. for a display of fireworks. P. appears to have subleased to defendant, who leased to plaintiff the bar privileges for a period of two weeks, July 14th to July 36th. Plaintiff put up tents, and kept a saloon therein, where he sold intoxicating liquors. B. & L., claiming that they had not leased the property for…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. The theory of the plaintiff is that he was evicted from the premises before the expiration of his term; that the defendant was responsible for such eviction, and was guilty of breach of contract; and that plaintiff is entitled to recover on the common counts in assumpsit for money equitably due him. His counsel claim the right to recover the money paid for the lease. Clearly he could not recover the whole amount, for he had the use of the premises nearly half the time granted by the lease. If the defendant had broken his covenant or agreement for quiet enjoyment,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Coulter v. NortonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Cornelissens v. DriscollMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Long v. SinclairMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hoard v. VandecarMichigan Supreme Court · 1925