Legal Opinion

Fry v. Miller

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 1922No. Docket No. 36PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

Plaintiff seeks specific performance of a land contract of which defendant had declared a forfeiture and given notice thereof. The contract price was $1,500. Plaintiff had paid $1,183.50. A few days after he received the notice of forfeiture, he tendered $300, and afterwards paid taxes amounting to $525.67.

In Waller v. Lieberman, 214 Mich. 428, we-approved the rule stated in 39 Cyc. p. 1384, that where a vendor has accepted past-due payments it is but equitable in case he afterwards seeks to rely on the provision for forfeiture in the contract to require him to give a notice stating the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Waller v. LiebermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Lozon v. McKayMichigan Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Collins v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Sliwinski v. GootsteinMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Zadigian v. GardMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Minchella v. FredericksMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. August v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1927

3 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