Blazewicz v. Weberski
| Decision Date | 14 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 37.,37. |
| Citation | 234 Mich. 431,208 N.W. 452 |
| Parties | BLAZEWICZ et al. v. WEBERSKI et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Ray Hart, Judge.
Bill by Bronislaw Blazewicz and another against Stephen Weberski and others. Decree dismissing bill, and plaintiff's bring error. Affirmed.
Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ. Wm. Cohen, of Detroit (Waldo Granse, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Winfred M. Alston and George F. Maxwell, both of Detroit, for appellees.
In November, 1922, plaintiffs were purchasing, under land contract, a lot on Prescott street, city of Hamtramck; they also owned another lot which they were selling on land contract and upon which there was unpaid the sum of $1,720. Desiring a new building on the Prescott street lot, plaintiffs, November 16, 1922, entered into contract with defendant Stephen Weberski, under which he was to construct the building, and to pay therefor plaintiffs assigned to him their land contract interest in that lot; Weberski was to pay the balance of $1,925 as it fell due thereon to the owner, and plaintiffs deeded to him the other lot, subject to the contract, at the fixed value of $1,720, and also paid $200 in money. This left a balance of $9,100 to be paid Weberski by plaintiffs. Weberski gave plaintiffs a land contract for the Prescott street property at the price of $9,100, to be paid in monthly installments of $50 and interest, commencing February 18, 1923; the entire amount to be paid in five years. Weberski put up the building in part and then abandoned the job, claiming plaintiffs failed to make payments on their land contract, and gave notice of forfeiture, and September 24, 1923, commenced a summary proceeding before a circuit court commissioner to obtain possession. Plaintiffs herein, defendants therein, were served with process but did not appear before the commissioner, and judgment of restitution was rendered October 15, 1923, with a finding of $876.70 due on the land contract. No appeal was taken, but October 22, 1923, plaintiffs filed the bill herein, alleging fraud committed by Weberski, and asked for an accounting. Upon hearing, the bill was dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed.
Plaintiffs claimed they were without remedy in the proceeding before the commissioner, and therefore of right ignored it and are properly in the court of equity. We find no fraud in the making of the contract or in any of the dealings between the parties. At the most, if plaintiffs' version is correct, there was a breach of the building contract by Weberski, with damage to plaintiffs. This defense could have been made before the commissioner both upon the question of default in payments and the amount, if any, due. If all the writings between the parties be taken as parts of one deal, and we feel they should be so taken, we see no reason, in a proceeding at law, under one part, why all parts could not be considered, and if Weberski breached his contract, and plaintiffs were justified thereby in not paying more under the land contract, then, of course, there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenthal v. Am. Constr. & Realty Co.
...when he attempted to rescind, his interest in the contracts had been terminated. He had nothing to rescind. Blazewicz v. Weberski, 234 Mich. 431, 208 N. W. 452;Augustyn v. Zawacki, 250 Mich. 218, 229 N. W. 453;Security Investment Co. v. Meister, 214 Mich. 337, 183 N. W. 183. The declaration......
-
Reid v. Gooden
...Co. v. Meister, 214 Mich. 337, 183 N.W. 183;Manuel v. Federal Commercial & Savings Bank, 227 Mich. 647, 199 N.W. 646;Blazewicz v. Weberski, 234 Mich. 431, 208 N.W. 452;Nance Realty Co. v. Wood-Wardowski Co., 242 Mich. 110, 218 N.W. 680. The jury found that there had been a modification of t......
-
Cook v. Cas. Ass'n of Am.
...170 N. W. 646; 34 C. J. 522; Bigelow v. Booth, 39 Mich. 622;Somers v. Losey, 48 Mich. 294, 12 N. W. 188; 34 C. J. 559; Blazewicz v. Weberski, 234 Mich. 431, 208 N. W. 452. Their claim that the judgment was void because Cook Motors Corporation could not maintain suit during its delinquency i......
-
Samaha v. Hamper Estate Co.
...Co. v. Meister, 214 Mich. 337, 183 N. W. 183;Manuel v. Federal Commercial & Savings Bank, 227 Mich. 647, 199 N. W. 646;Blazewicz v. Weberski, 234 Mich. 431, 208 N. W. 452;William F. Nance Realty Co. v. Wood-Wardowski Co., 242 Mich. 110, 218 N. W. 680. In the last-cited case, it is said: ‘A ......