Maurer v. Iden
| Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 29.,29. |
| Citation | 242 Mich. 568,219 N.W. 655 |
| Parties | MAURER et ux. v. IDEN et ux. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Richard C. Flannigan, Judge.
Suit by Markus Maurer and wife against Morris Iden and wife. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Court.
Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellants.
Valois R. Crossley, of Detroit, for appellees.
Markus Maurer and his wife, Celia Maurer, entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase a moving picture business in the city of Detroit, which purchase included the personal property used in connection with the business and the lease of the property, the agreed consideration being $7,500. As part payment in this transaction the plaintiffs gave the defendants $500 in cash, deeded to them real estate in Macomb county valued at $1,100, and also conveyed their interest amounting to $2,700 in another piece of land located in Detroit. This latter parcel was sold on a contract, and the plaintiffs assigned their interest therein as vendors to the defendants. The balance of the consideration for the theater was to be paid in monthly installments of $100 each. The plaintiffs took possession February 8, 1927, and soon discovered from actual operation of the business that the theater was a losing venture. They continued to operate it until March 9, 1927, but in the meantime, and on February 24, they filed this bill of complaint wherein they seek to have their agreement to purchase and the conveyances and transfers of their property to the defendants canceled and an accounting between the parties to this suit. It also appears that the plaintiffs operated this theater for two days, March 19 and 20. The defendants answered March 3 denying that the plaintiffs were entitled to any relief. The hearing of the case was concluded April 13, 1927. The plaintiffs prevailed in the circuit court and the defendants have appealed.
Relief is sought by the plaintiffs on the theory that they were induced by the fraudulent representations and deceit of the defendants to enter into this transaction. The particular fraudulent representation alleged in the bill is that the theater could be and was being operated at a large profit, that it was producing profit of $100 per week; and, as a part of the plan to induce the plaintiffs to believe and rely on such false representation, the defendants distributed tickets gratuitously about the community, thereby increasing the attendance at the theater on the occasions when plaintiffs or their son, who was acting with them, were making observations as to the character and extent of the business. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs' claim of being deceived and defrauded in the manner alleged is not sustained by the proof. We have given the record careful consideration and find abundant proof therein, as did the circuit judge, to sustain these allegations of the bill of complaint.
It is strenuously urged by the defendants that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because they did not tender a return of the theater until the hearing of the case; that they therefore did not place the defendants in status quo as far as within plaintiffs' power so to do; and further, the defendants claim the plaintiffs did not act promptly upon learning of the alleged fraud, but instead continued to operate the theater and appropriated the income therefrom. It is also claimed in behalf of the defendants that it nowhere appears in the record that the various items of personal property used in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fryer v. Campbell
...that in view of certain negotiations of settlement, the plaintiffs did not determine definitely to rescind until later. In Maurer v. Iden, 242 Mich. 568, 219 N.W. 655, the of a motion picture business of which they took possession on February 8, soon acquired knowledge of misrepresentations......
-
Stefanac v. Cranbrook Educational Community
...706, 721, 226 N.W.2d 834 (1975).64 P. 63.65 11A Callaghan's Michigan Pleading & Practice, Sec. 85.22, p. 77. See Maurer v. Iden, 242 Mich. 568, 571, 219 N.W. 655 (1928) ("While restoration or a tender of restoration is a prerequisite to recovery in a suit at law on the ground of rescission,......
-
Mettetal v. Hall
...made in pursuance thereof. Jandorf v. Patterson, 90 Mich. 40, 51 N.W. 352;Witte v. Hobolth, 224 Mich. 286, 195 N.W. 82;Maurer v. Iden, 242 Mich. 568, 219 N.W. 655;Lightner v. Karnatz, 258 Mich. 74, 241 N.W. 841;Himebaugh v. Chalker, 261 Mich. 80, 245 N.W. 576; 6 Pomeroy's Equitable Remedies......
-
Lightner v. Karnatz
...of, the property he received, that by his own act he thus may have legal right and title to the money.’ And in Maurer v. Iden, 242 Mich. 568, 219 N. W. 655, 656,Jandorf v. Patterson, 90 Mich. 40, 51 N. W. 352, and Witte v. Hobolth, 224 Mich. 286, 195 N. W. 82, were cited with approval, and ......