Oyler v. Fenner, 112.

• Citation: 235 N.W. 204,253 Mich. 417
• Decision Date: 27 February 1931
• Docket Number: No. 112.,112.
• Parties: OYLER et al. v. FENNER.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

253 Mich. 417

235 N.W. 204

OYLER et al.

v.FENNER.

No. 112.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 27, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Muskegon County, in Chancery; John Vanderwerp, Judge.

Suit by Charles L. Oyler and another against Catherine Fenner. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BUTZEL, C. J., and WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, and FEAD, JJ.John A. McLaughlin and Alexis J. Rogoski, both of Muskegon, for appellant.

Cross, Foote & Sessions and Myrten W. Davie, all of Muskegon, for appellees.

SHARPE, J.

In this case the trial court filed the following opinion:

‘The bill in this cause was filed to enforce an alleged oral agreement relating to land, partially performed. The plaintiffs were husband and wife, but are now divorced. Mrs. Oyler is a daughter of the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that in 1907 the defendant entered into a verbal contract with them for the sale of the property involved in the case and described in the bill of complaint, for $1,800, to be paid $100 in cash at the time the contract was to be signed and $100 each year thereafter without interest, on condition that plaintiffs should improve the property and pay the taxes thereof. The defendant denies this claimed arrangement and in her behalf it is contended that if a contract is established in the opinion of the court, it should be with the condition that the plaintiffs pay the amount of the same with interest payable annually from time contract was made.

‘I have carefully gone over the arguments of counsel and considered the testimony given upon the hearing, and I am convinced that the oral contract was entered into as claimed by the plaintiffs. I am also convinced that plaintiffs have partially performed the contract; that they have made improvements upon the property, and have paid taxes from time to time upon the property, although not directly to the tax collector, but most of the time through Mrs. Fenner. Plaintiffs produced one receipt given by the defendant, Mrs. Fenner, to Charles Oyler on April 18, 1924, for the sum of $40, stated to be taxes for 1923. If the parties were not related it might be considered improbable that Mrs. Fenner should agree to sell the property without interest, but, considering the testimony that she stated her other children had not paid interest on moneys advanced to them, it throws a different light upon the situation. The property is now worth, according to disinterested and...