Detroit Fid. & Sur. Co. v. Bushman
| Decision Date | 16 September 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 113.,113. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | DETROIT FIDELITY & SURETY CO. v. BUSHMAN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Homer Ferguson, Judge.
Action by the Detroit Fidelity & Surety Company, a Michigan corporation, against Franklin E. Bushman. From an adverse decree, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Wilkinson, Lowther & O'Connell, of Detroit, for appellant.
Friedman, Meyers & Keys, of Detroit, for appellee.
From decree of foreclosure of land contract, defendant has appealed.
On June 15, 1920, the parties entered into an agreement by which defendant was engaged as loan agent of plaintiff for a period of years, and it is alleged in the bill of complaint and not specifically denied by answer that by and through said agreement defendant personally guaranteed all loans made by plaintiff through him, and further agreed to relieve plaintiff of any real estate taken upon foreclosure of any such loan and to pay therefor.
A loan was made through defendant secured by mortgage on real and personal property, the Clifford Hotel in Detroit. The mortgage was foreclosed, and plaintiff thereby acquired title. It then called upon defendant to make good his agreement, and was refused. Suit for specific performance followed, which was settled and compromised by defendant's becoming purchaser in a land contract of the realty and with accompanying agreement to transfer the personalty upon payment of the full price named in the contract. The agreement as to personalty excepts an alleged chattel mortgage claim of Albert Pick & Co. Defendant made some payments on the contract, and defaulted.
With the answer to the bill to foreclose is a cross-bill for rescission on an alleged defect in title to real estate and on defect in title to personalty, the claim arising by the chattel mortgage. The allegation of defect in title to real estate is wholly without merit. Neither is there merit in the contention respecting defect in title to personalty. Defendant had knowledge of it. The agreement speaks of it.
It is said by the trial judge: ‘In the case in question, it is not a question as to the title of the personal property, but only a mortgage upon the same which can be removed by the payment of the sum found to be due and which mortgage is now in litigation’-citing Daly v. Kramer, 235 Mich. 581, 209 N. W. 926, and Langley v. Kirker, 247 Mich. 443, 225 N. W. 931. And: ‘As to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ihlenfeldt v. Guastella
...and could not recover his down payment. See also Adadow v. Perry, 225 Mich. 286, 196 N.W. 190 (1923); Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co. v. Bushman, 260 Mich. 115, 244 N.W. 251 (1932). The defendants were entitled to a written notice of any objection to the title and were further entitled to exp......
-
Walcrath Realty Co. v. Van Dyke
...for failure of title before the vendor is bound to convey. Silfver v. Daenzer, 167 Mich. 362, 133 N. W. 16;Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co. v. Bushman, 260 Mich. 115, 244 N. W. 251. However, misrepresentation of title is fraud if it results in injury to the vendee. 39 Cyc. p. 1264; Allen v. Ta......
-
Stover v. Whiting, Docket No. 85397
...there was no doubt about the vendors' good faith and their ability to complete their title. The Supreme Court in Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co. v. Bushman, 260 Mich. 115, 244 N.W. 251 (1932), noted the language in Silfver v. Daenzer, supra, and concluded that it is sufficient that the land c......
- People v. Johnson, 171