Hull v. Hostettler
| Decision Date | 01 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 44.,44. |
| Citation | 224 Mich. 365,194 N.W. 996 |
| Parties | HULL v. HOSTETTLER et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Samuel G. Houghton, Judge.
Suit by Murray E. Hull against Alfred Hostettler and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ. John H. Dohrman, of Detroit, for appellants.
Earl I. Heenan, of Detroit, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree granting specific performance of a contract for the exchange of real estate. The plaintiff owned a farm of 42 acres in Lapeer county, near Dryden, Mich. The Hostettlers had an equity as vendees in a land contract of property in the city of Detroit. Desiring to exchange these properties, the parties entered into a written contract, wherein it was provided that the plaintiff was to deed his farm to the Hostettlers and take back a mortgage thereon for $3,500 in exchange for their equity of $5,000 in the city property, on which they still owed about $3,900. The negotiations leading up to the exchange were carried on through a real estate agency in Detroit. In consummating the deal each party was to deposit the necessary papers with the realty company, which was authorized to make delivery of them. The plaintiff's deed was deposited, together with the real estate mortgage, which defendants were to sign. The Hostettlers deposited their original contract and an assignment thereof to plaintiff, but before they got around to execute the mortgage they changed their minds and declined to complete the deal. The plaintiff tendered his deed and the real estate mortgage for their signatures, and on their refusal to execute it filed his bill for specific performance. $The defendants August G. Lamberg and Maggie Lamberg, his wife, are assignees of the original vendors in the contract with the Hostettlers, and on their petition the court permitted them to intervene. They ask to have it determined that, as their contract was by its terms not assignable, the assignment to the plaintiff gave him no right, title, or interest in the property, that it was a breach of the covenants and agreements of the contract, and that they are entitled to a decree declaring it forfeited. The Hostettlers in their defense relied on the nonassignability signability of the contract and the fraud of the plaintiff in inducing the exchange. From a decree for the plaintiff, the defendants have appealed.
The first question discussed by counsel for the defendants is stated in his brief as follows:
As between Hull and the Hostettlers, the nonassignability clause in the contract is not one of the issues in this case. The suit was not begun to compel an assignment; that already has been executed and delivered to the plaintiff, together with the original contract. Having made and delivered the assignment, there is nothing to prevent the assignment, from executing the mortgage and completing the performance. It is within their power to perform pursuant to contract, notwithstanding the attitude of the vendors. We might stop here in the discussion of this phase of the case, were it not for the fact that the Lambergs, the vendors in the contract, have become parties to the suit, and insist that the assignment is void and passes no title or interest in the property to the plaintiff, because it was made in violation of the restrictions. This raises the question as to the effect and validity of covenants of this character in land contracts. Such a covenant does not absolutely prohibit the vendee from selling and assigning his interest in the property. If it did, it would be an unlawful restriction upon the power to alienate real estate. The interest which a vendee has is real property, while that of the vendor is personalty.
‘In equity the land belongs to the vendee, and may be sold, devised, or incumbered by him, and on his death will descend to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyworth v. Wiechers
...forfeitures, and not only will not aid in enforcing them, but will restrict their effect as far as possible.’ Hull v. Hostettler, 224 Mich. 365, 194 N. W. 996, 997. ‘The law does not favor forfeitures, and he who plants himself upon a forfeiture must look well to where he stands.’ Zadigian ......
-
In re Gorges
...has the right to assign his rights under that contract to a third party, without the consent of the seller. See Hull v. Hostettler , 224 Mich. 365, 194 N.W. 996, 997 (1923) (holding that an anti-assignment clause in a real estate contract "does not absolutely prohibit the vendee from sellin......
-
Keyworth v. Wiechers
...forfeitures, and not only will not aid in enforcing them, but will restrict their effect as far as possible.’ Hull v. Hostettler, 224 Mich. 365, 194 N. W. 996, 997. Equity relieves against forfeitures when it would be oppressive or fraudulent not to. Curry v. Curry, 213 Mich. 309, 182 N. W.......
-
In re Frank Kunik Farms, Inc.
...Collins v. Collins, 348 Mich. 320, 83 N.W.2d 213 (1957); Bilandzija v. Shilts, 334 Mich. 421, 54 N.W.2d 705 (1952); Hull v. Hostettler, 224 Mich. 365, 194 N.W. 996 (1923); Zadigian v. Gard, 223 Mich. 147, 152-153, 193 N.W. 783 (1923); Howard v. Lud, 119 Mich.App. 55, 58, 325 N.W.2d 623 (198......
-
Intellectual Property Considerations in Business Transactions-part Ii
...permission by other party cannot be transferred to corporation that survives after merger of licensee and another); Hull v. Hostettler, 194 N.W. 996 (Mich. 1923) breach of anti-assignment clause when assignment made because of change in assignor's business, as where individual proprietor fo......