Crook v. Ford

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: POTTER
• Citation: Crook v. Ford, 249 Mich. 500, 229 N.W. 587 (Mich. 1930)
• Decision Date: 06 March 1930
• Docket Number: Jan. Term, 1930.,No. 42,42
• Parties: CROOK et al. v. FORD et al.

249 Mich. 500

229 N.W. 587

CROOK et al.

v.FORD et al.

No. 42, Jan. Term, 1930.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 6, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Ira W. Jayne, Judge.

Action by Harold W. Crook and others against Hiram E. Ford and another, copartners doing business as Ford & Burlingame. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Maxwell W. Benjamin, of Detroit, for appellants.

George D. O'Brien and Walter J. Dunne, both of Detroit, for appellees.

POTTER, J.

Plaintiffs, vendees of city lots in Detroit, were desirous of having built on one of them an income bungalow. Defendants were to acquire title to one of plaintiffs' lots on which was to be erected under a verbal contract with defendants, a building partially complete, the second story of which was to be finished by plaintiffs. This verbal agreement was made in March, 1926, and defendants were to fully perform their part of the contract by June 5, 1926.

After the house was up, and, according to defendants, fully completed on their part, a written land contract was entered into between plaintiffs and defendants, whereby plaintiffs again became vendees of the lot, in May, 1926, which land contract was dated back to March 5, 1926. The land contract in part confirmed the terms of the verbal contract as to plaintiffs finishing the second story of the house. It provided: ‘All the inside finish on the second floor including lathing, plastering, plumbing, wiring, electric fixtures, painting, decorating, lighting fixtures, labor, inside carpenter finish and all work necessary to complete the second floor ready for occupancy is to be completed and paid for by the purchaser, for which credit has been given on down payment with interest upon interest overdue hereon from maturity to date of payment, at the rate of seven per cent per annum.’

Plaintiffs entered into possession. They claim the foundations of the house were not constructed in a workmanlike manner, though so represented to them by defendants, and that by reason thereof it settled, the celler walls cracked, the basement floor cracked and settled, the plaster on the walls and ceilings cracked, the paper on the walls cracked, the floors took on undulating curves, the doors would not open and close, the house sank in the middle, the furnace tipped over, and defendants, after plaintiffs' tenants occupied the house, entered the premises, jacked up the house and put new foundations under the center and sought to repair it, making such a mess that plaintiffs' tenants moved out, whereupon plaintiffs refused, because of the condition of the building, to pay the monthly payments due on the land contract, and were subsequently formally ejected by summary proceedings before a circuit court commissioner. Plaintiffs, after such summary proceedings were instituted by defendants to recover possession of the premises, filed a bill in equity praying that the verbal agreement between the parties as to the building of the house be decreed to be an integral part of the contract for the purchase of the property by plaintiffs from defendants; that defendants be decreed to perform such revised contract; that the declaration of foreclosure of said land contract by defendants be decreed null and void, and, if the court should find the construction of the house as agreed on has become impracticable by the acts of defendants, the land contract be rescinded and defendants be decreed to pay plaintiffs the full amount plaintiffs have expended by virtue of the contract; that defendants be restrained from further prosecuting the suit to recover possession of the premises before the circuit court commissioner of Wayne county; and for other relief.

Upon the filing of this bill, and without giving the statutory bond, an injunction was issued; defendants answered, and on April 25, 1927, the case was ordered transferred to the law side of the court. Subsequently a declaration was filed by plaintiffs against defendants, consisting of three counts. January 9, 1929, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury and resulted in a verdict of $1,000 for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error. The principal question raised by defendants' several...