Rosenthal v. Triangle Dev. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 95.,95. |
| Citation | 246 N.W. 182,261 Mich. 462 |
| Parties | ROSENTHAL et al. v. TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County, in Chancery; Parm C. Gilbert, Judge.
Suit by Ben Rosenthal and another against the Triangle Development Company. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Aaron Fellman, of Detroit, for appellants.
Beaumont, Smith & Harris, of Detroit, for appellee.
We have said that ‘the right * * * to live in a district uninvaded by stores, garages, business and apartment houses is a valuable right,’ Signaigo v. Begun, 234 Mich. 246, 207, N. W. 799, 800, that ‘the right of privacy for homes is a valuable right,’ and ‘restrictions for residence purposes * * * are favored by definite public policy.’ Johnstone v. Railway Co., 245 Mich. 65, 222 N. W. 325, 328, 67 A. L. R. 373.
Plaintiffs complain of too much of a good thing. They purchased on executory land contracts two lots in a subdivision known as McGiverin-Haldeman's Huntington Woods Manor in Oakland county. These lots, in common with 563 other lots of the subdivision, were restricted to single residence. The remaining 377 lots could be used for flats, stores, or offices. Later there was substituted one general restriction limiting the whole subdivision to single residences. Alleging thereby breach of the contracts, plaintiffs filed bill to rescind, which, on motion, was dismissed. Plaintiffs have appealed.
The legal nature of these restrictions, reciprocal negative easements, is fully discussed in Johnstone v. Railway Co., supra, and Sanborn v. McLean, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N. W. 496, 60 A. L. R. 1212.
This court has permitted rescission for mere breach of contract (see 9 C. J. p. 1181), but has not gone so far that the following, from 6 R. C. L. p. 926, is not acceptable. ‘It is not every partial failure to comply with the terms of a contract by one party which will entitle the other party to abandon the contract at once.’
Rather rescission is permissible when there is failure to perform a substantial part of the contract or one of its essential items, or ‘where the contract would not have been made if default in that particular had been expected or contemplated.’ 1 Black on Rescission and Cancellation (2d Ed.) p. 553.
The following are illustrative cases where rescission was had.
In Brow v. Gibralter Land Co., 249 Mich. 662, 229 N. W. 604, there was failure to construct agreed improvements; a breach of a very essential term. See note 67 A. L. R. 809.
In Seymour v. Detroit C. & B. Rolling Mills, 56 Mich. 117, 22 N. W. 317,23 N. W. 186, the breach was of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meemic Ins. Co. v. Fortson
...items[.]’ " Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg. , 499 Mich. 491, 510, 885 N.W.2d 861 (2016), quoting Rosenthal v. Triangle Dev. Co. , 261 Mich. 462, 463, 246 N.W. 182 (1933).15 Thus, a postprocurement fraud clause that rescinds a contract would be valid as applied to a party's failure to per......
-
Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg.
...the contract or one of its essential items,” the courts have permitted the parties to rescind the contract. Rosenthal v. Triangle Dev. Co., 261 Mich. 462, 463, 246 N.W. 182 (1933). But failure of consideration does not void a contract when the party seeks to void the contract based on an ev......
-
In re Impel Mfg. Co.
...in that particular had been expected or contemplated — Slaggert v. Case, 319 Mich. 200, 201, 29 N.W.2d 280; Rosenthal v. Triangle Development Co., 261 Mich. 462, 246 N.W. 182; City of Grand Haven v. Grand Haven Water Works, 99 Mich. 106, 57 N.W. 1075; I Black on "Rescission and Cancellation......
-
Johnson v. Geico Indem. Co.
... ... Liquid Mfg, 499 Mich. 491, 510; 885 N.W.2d 861 (2016), ... quoting Rosenthal v Triangle Dev Co, 261 Mich. 462, ... 463; 246 N.W. 182 (1933). Thus, a postprocurement fraud ... ...