Marks-Fiske-Zeiger Co. v. Am. Bushings Corp.

• Citation: 250 Mich. 583,230 N.W. 919
• Decision Date: 02 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 36.,36.
• Parties: MARKS-FISKE-ZEIGER CO. v. AMERICAN BUSHINGS CORPORATION et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

250 Mich. 583

230 N.W. 919

MARKS-FISKE-ZEIGER CO.

v.AMERICAN BUSHINGS CORPORATION et al.

No. 36.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 2, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Samuel G. Houghton, Judge.

Suit by the Marks-Fiske-Zeiger Company against the American Bushings Corporation and another. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Angell, Turner & Dyer, of Detroit (Thomas Wellman, of Port Huron, of counsel), for appellants.

Munro & Powell, of Detroit (Leo F. Covey, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

NORTH, J.

This is a suit for specific performance of a land contract. Plaintiff had decree and defendant has appealed. This contract in which plaintiff was the vendee and defendant the vendor was executed and delivered June 6, 1924. On that date and for some time prior thereto the defendant Pressed Metals Company of America (formerly the American Bushings Corporation) owned the parcel of land described in the contract and located in the city of Detroit. An assessment for street pavement previously laid had been made against this parcel. This assessment was payable in four annual installments, the first due in January, 1924. Under the provision of the Detroit City charter, the assessment became a lien upon the land October 2, 1923. This was a little more than eight months prior to the consummation of the contract. The first of the four installments was paid by defendant before it entered into this contract with the plaintiff. When subsequent installments fell due, the defendant claimed it was plaintiff's duty under the terms of the contract to pay the balance of this paving assessment. Plaintiff refused to do so, asserting it was defendant's obligation. To save the property from tax sale the defendant paid the three remaining installments as follows: $1,237.70 on November 9, 1926; $1,565.96 on December 3, 1926; and $785.74 on March 4, 1927. Subsequently plaintiff tendered to defendant the balance of the contract price and demanded conveyance of title. Defendant refused to convey unless the three amounts just above noted and accrued interest thereon were also paid to it by plaintiff. This suit for specific performance followed.

Determination of the controversy depends upon the construction to be placed upon the pertinent portions of the contract which read thus:

‘Ninth. Said vendee agrees in due season to pay all taxes and assessments extraordinary, as well as ordinary, which may be levied or assessed against the parcel of land hereby contracted to be conveyed including the taxes of 1924.’‘Tenth. Said vendor agrees on receiving the aforementioned consideration, * * * (to) execute and deliver to said vendee or its successors or assigns a good and sufficient conveyance of said described premises free and clear of and from all liens and encumbrances, except all deferred special assessment tax installments and such liens and encumbrances as may have accrued thereon subsequent to the date hereof by or through the acts or neglect of any party or parties other than the said vendor.’

Mr....