Brow v. Gibraltar Land Co.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 47.,47. |
| Citation | 249 Mich. 662,229 N.W. 604 |
| Parties | BROW v. GIBRALTAR LAND CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph A. Moynihan, Judge.
Suit by Richard A. Brow against the Gibraltar Land Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Stevenson, Butzel, Eaman & Long, of Detroit, for appellant.
Owen Rippey, of Detroit (Fred H. Aldrich, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
Richard A. Brow brought suit against the Gibraltar Land Company, a Michigan corporation, to recover $406.87 paid to defendant as part of the contract price of a lot which plaintiff purchased of defendant. He had judgment, and defendant reviews by writ of error. Plaintiff based his right of recovery upon the failure of defendant to construct streets and bridges and to dredge certain canals for which provision was made in plaintiff's contract to purchase. The defendant company had platted three hundred acres of land of which plaintiff's lot was a part. It had undertaken to make certain improvements on this subdivision, and an agreement so to do was embodied in the contracts under which lots were sold. While the defendant was engaged in making these improvements, Brownstown township, in which the land was located, filed a bill in equity and enjoined the prosecution of the work on the ground that the streets and bridges were not being properly constructed. The sale to plaintiff was made while this litigation was pending and the injunction in force. Plaintiff had no knowledge of this litigation or the outstanding injunction nor was he advised in any way relative thereto by defendant's agents through whom he contracted to purchase his lot on August 30, 1926. As noted above, work on the proposed improvements had already been suspended, and nothing further was done to make these improvements in the vicinity of plaintiff's lot up to the time suit was instituted in October, 1928. Practically nothing seems to have been done by defendant to dispose of the litigation instituted by the township or to secure a dissolution of the injunction.
Plaintiff claims he purchased the property for the purpose of using it as a storage place for boats; but that he was entirely deprived of its use because it was wholly inaccessible on account of defendant's failure to construct the canals, streets and bridges as provided in the contract. He testified that he repeatedly requested defendant to make these improvements, that defendant as often as approached promised the improvements would be made, but nevertheless, nothing was done. Plaintiff's theory is that since this contract did not specify a definite time within which the defendant should make the improvements therein provided, the work should have been prosecuted with diligence and completed within a reasonable time, that since this was not done he had a right to rescind and to bring this suit to recover sums paid on the purchase price.
The defense is urged that plaintiff's agreement to pay for the lot in question and defendant's undertaking to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lightner v. Karnatz
...In Peters v. Fagan, 244 Mich. 46, 221 N. W. 274;Sutton v. Meyerding Land Co., 248 Mich. 601, 227 N. W. 783, and Brow v. Gibraltar Land Co., 249 Mich. 662, 229 N. W. 604, where assumpsit was brought, it was held a tender should have been made prior to the institution of suit. These cases do ......
-
Hustina v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co.
...of plaintiffs' and their predecessor's failure to seek enforcement of this covenant within a reasonable time. Brow v. Gibraltar Land Co., 249 Mich. 662, 229 N.W. 604. Plaintiffs and their predecessor in title and guilty of laches in not attempting to enforce the covenant for a period of nea......
-
Pierson v. Davidson, 139.
...Greenwood v. Davis, 106 Mich. 230, 64 N. W. 26; Reinforced Concrete Pipe Co. v. Boyes, 180 Mich. 609, 147 N. W. 577;Brow v. Gibralter Land Co., 249 Mich. 662; 229 N. W. 604. However, it does not even become necessary for us to determine what was the reasonable time, for the parties themselv......
-
Himebaugh v. Chalker
...of the contracts. Jandorf v. Patterson, 90 Mich. 40, 51 N. W. 352;Maurer v. Iden, 242 Mich. 568, 219 N. W. 655;Brow v. Gibraltar Land Co., 249 Mich. 662, 229 N. W. 604; Lightner v. Karnatz, 258 Mich. 75, 241 N. W. 841. Defendants' principal contention is that the court was in error in holdi......