In re Parkstone Apartment Co.
| Decision Date | 24 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 160.,160. |
| Citation | 220 N.W. 780,243 Mich. 401 |
| Parties | In re PARKSTONE APARTMENT CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; A. F. Marschner, Judge.
In the matter of the petition for the dissolution of the Parkstone Apartment Company, of which the Union Trust Company is receiver. The Netting Company and other creditors commenced reclamation proceedings, and the court made an order permitting them to reclaim the property, and the receiver appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except McDONALD, J.Milburn & Semmes, of Detroit, for appellant.
Freeman & Jordan, of Detroit, for appellee Netting Co.
Joslyn, Joslyn & Joslyn, of Detroit, for appellee Murphy Wall Bed Co.
Ralph B. Clark, of Detroit, for appellee Huebner Screen Door Co.
Marlin J. W. Campbell and Jos. J. Geraci, both of Detroit, for appellee J. E. Stephens Co.
The Union Trust Company is receiver for the Parkstone Apartment Company, a Michigan corporation. Certain creditors commenced reclamation proceedings-the Netting Company for lighting fixtures and equipment and for miscellaneous merchandise; the Murphy Wall Bed Company for wall beds; the J. E. Stephens Company for kitchen equipment; the Detroit Canvas Company for awnings; the Huebner Screen Door Company for door and window screens; and the A. J. Marshall Company for dishes and dining room equipment.
All the contracts which constitute the basis of the several reclamation proceedings were in writing. The contract of the Netting Company provided for the execution and acceptance of promissory notes for the unpaid balance due on its contract, without prejudice to any of the other contract rights set forth therein; that the giving of such promissory notes should not in any way or form legally affect the ownership or title or legal relation of the parties, being obviously and expressly given for the mutual accommodation and benefit of the parties. It also contained a clause that the property and the full title thereof should remain in the vendors until the full amount of the purchase price was paid in full, and that the contract should constitute a conditional sale contract. It further provided:
‘* * * If the undersigned shall make default in payment as above expressed, or any part thereof, or shall remove any of such property without your consent from the place or building to which same is delivered, placed or installed, then you shall have the right and privilege to retake or repossess yourself with said property wherever the same may be located, and all payments made by the undersigned thereon shall be forfeited to you as stipulated damages for the nonperformance of this contract.’
An affidavit was attached to this instrument that the consideration was actual and adequate, and that it was given in good faith for the purposes therein set forth.
The contract of the Huebner Screen Door Company provided:
‘All materials furnished according to this contract remain the property of the first party until fully paid for.’
The contract of the Murphy Wall Bed Company provided:
‘The undersigned also further agrees that the above beds, even though installed, are and shall remain the property of Murphy Wall Bed Company of Detroit, and subject to removal by them, without due process of law, any time defore full payment has been acknowledged and a bill of sale given therefor.’
The J. E. Stephens Company contract provided:
‘It is agreed that title to the above described property remains in the seller until any notes or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Michigan Artificial Ice Products Co., 2301.
...remedy reserved was the right of reclamation: Contractors' Equipment Co. v. Reasner, 242 Mich. 589, 219 N. W. 713; In re Parkstone Apt. Co., 243 Mich. 401, 220 N. W. 780. Applying to the instant case the principle set forth in Burroughs Adding Machine v. Wieselberg, 230 Mich. 15, 203 N. W. ......
-
Property v. United Specialty Ins. Co.
...to the same is retained by the vendor until the purchase price is paid,when it passes to the vendee." (quoting In re Parkstone Apartment Co., 220 N.W. 780, 781 (Mich. 1928)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nev. Refining Co. v. Newton, 497 P.2d 887, 889 (Nev. 1972) ("The essence of a co......
-
Grand Rapids Electrotype Co. v. Powers-Tyson Corp.
...Trust Co., 223 Mich. 169, 193 N. W. 791;Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Wieselberg, 230 Mich. 15, 203 N. W. 160;In re Parkstone Apartment Co., 243 Mich. 401, 220 N. W. 780. In Nelson v. Viergiver, 230 Mich. 38, 203 N. W. 164, it is said: ‘A conditional sale contract may reserve to the selle......
-
Alger v. Davis
...283, 269 N.W. 175; Grubiak v. United Store Fixture Co., Inc., 281 Mich. 576, 275 N.W. 255.' In the case of In re Dissolution of Parkstone Apartment Co., 243 Mich. 401, 220 N.W. 780, we had occasion to define the term 'conditional sales agreement' and the rights of a vendor by virtue of such......