Heppner v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | Jan. Term.,No. 118,118 |
| Citation | 213 N.W. 119,238 Mich. 245 |
| Parties | HEPPNER et al. v. SMITH. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macomb County, in Chancery; Glenn C. Gillespie, Judge.
Bill by Henry Heppner and others against George W. Smith to restrain restitution of lands and for specific performance. Defendant prayed for foreclosure. From a decree dismissing the bill as to all plaintiffs except John Heppner and terminating his rights in the land upon condition, plaintiffs appeal. Decree affirmed as modified.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Robert M. Dalton, of Detroit, for appellants.
Campbell, Dewey, Stanton & Bushnell, of Detroit (Arthur F. Neef, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
The bill was filed to restrain restitution of lands upon judgment in summary proceedings before a circuit court commissioner under section 13240 et seq., Comp. Laws 1915, and for specific performance of a land contract. The answer prayed affirmative relief, foreclosure of the land contract. The decree dismissed the bill as to all plaintiffs except John Heppner and gave him the right to redeem from the said judgment within 30 days upon payment of the amount then due, and provided further that, if said plaintiff did not so redeem, his rights would thereby be terminated. Plaintiffs have appealed.
Defendant, George W. Smith, sold the lands to John Heppner but the land contract named plaintiffs Henry Heppner and Barbara Heppner his wife, and Julia Heppner as the purchasers, to secure them for having advanced to John the down payment. The other plaintiff is the wife of John. At the time of instituting the summary proceedings and at all other times herein John Heppner was in possession of the lands, using and occupying them with his wife as their home. Equitably and in fact he was the owner. As between the plaintiffs the purchasers named in the land contract were equitable mortgagees merely (41 C. J. 315), and they were not in possession of the lands. John Heppner was not a party in the summary proceedings. See section 13241, Comp. Laws 1915. The mortgagees were the parties defendant. The judgment in that action does not deprive the mortgagees of their security, and it does not affect the rights of John Heppner in any way. Restitution upon the judgment was properly enjoined. Defendant, Smith, is entitled to decree for foreclosure on his answer in the nature of cross-bill, but foreclosure should be in the regular way. The important difference between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit City Serv. Co.
...right to redeem on foreclosure of a land contract. Drysdale v. P. J. Christy Land Co., 248 Mich. 184, 226 N. W. 882;Heppner v. Smith, 238 Mich. 245, 247, 213 N. W. 119. Likewise, in Webber v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 184 Mich. 112, 150 N. W. 305, the court ordered sale of an electric light co......
-
Teetzel v. Atkinson
...after sale. The generally accepted time for redemption after sale has been fixed by courts of chancery at 30 days. See Heppner v. Smith, 238 Mich. 245, 213 N.W. 119;City Lumber Co. v. Hollands, 181 Mich. 531, 148 N.W. 361. In the case at bar the trial court was in error in ruling that the p......
-
Smith v. Heppner
...rendered in that case in the circuit court, appeal was taken to this court, where the decree was modified and affirmed. Heppner v. Smith, 238 Mich. 245, 213 N.W. 119. The decree of this court found John Heppner and Julia Heppner were the real purchasers, the eviction proceedings should be r......
-
Shady View Beach Land Co. v. Summers
...129 N. W. 703;City Lumber Co. v. Hollands, 181 Mich. 531, 148 N. W. 361;Cady v. Taggart, 223 Mich. 191, 193 N. W. 848;Heppner v. Smith, 238 Mich. 245, 213 N. W. 119. The conclusion of the whole matter is stated in Drysdale v. P. J. Christy Land Co., 248 Mich. 184, 226 N. W. 882: ‘There is n......