Fry v. Miller
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Waller v. LiebermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Lozon v. McKayMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
3Cited by8 opinions
- Collins v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
- Sliwinski v. GootsteinMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Zadigian v. GardMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Minchella v. FredericksMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
- August v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.