Sloman v. Cutler

• Decision Date: 06 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 113.,113.
• Citation: 242 N.W. 735,258 Mich. 372
• Parties: SLOMAN et ux. v. CUTLER.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

258 Mich. 372

242 N.W. 735

SLOMAN et ux.

v.CUTLER.

No. 113.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 6, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court Wayne County; Kelly S. Searl, Judge.

Action by Adolph Sloman and wife against Phillip Cutler. Judgment for defendant and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed and remanded for judgment for plaintiff.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Edmund M. Sloman and Arthur H. Ratner, both of Detroit (Adolph Sloman in pro. per., of counsel), for appellants.

Shapero & Shapero, of Detroit (Nelson S. Shapero, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

CLARK, C. J.

This suit by plaintiffs, husband and wife, named as vendors of property, owned by husband, in an executory land contract, against defendant Cutler, assignee of the purchaser Rose M. Braidel, is in assumpsit to recover installments of the purchase price. Defendant had judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed.

The contract provides against assignment by the purchaser without written consent of the vendor, and this is coupled with a provision for forfeiture for breach.

Defendant accepted the contract by assignment from the purchaser, the vendors consenting thereto, and the assignee assuming performance of the contract, and this is asserted to establish contract relations between plaintiffs, vendors, and defendant, assignee. On the other hand, it is urged that the contract provision against assignment is void as a restraint on alienation, that the asserted contract between the parties is without consideration, and that therefore there is no privity of contract.

On the question of whether the contract provision against assignment by the purchaser is void as a restraint on alienation, our investigation proved the correctness of the statement, in 27 R. C. L. p. 564, that the law on the question is not clear. We invited Professor Edwin C. Coddard of the law faculty of the University of Michigan to file brief amicus curiae. We have been aided by his excellent brief, as we gratefully acknowledge.

If one's interest in property is absolute, as a fee simple, restriction on his right of alienation is void as repugnant to the grant. This is because violation of the restriction affects no interest but his own. Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 29 Mich. 78, 18 Am. Rep. 61. Where the grantor retains an interest in the property granted, such as reversionary interest to him as lessor, the interest generally will support the imposing of a restriction on alienation.

The interest remaining in a vendor in a land contract is not a reversion, but it is an important interest, commonly the greater interest and near the value of the property, and his imposing such restriction is sustainable as within his right to preserve his security under the contract. In Peters v. Canfield, 74 Mich. 498, 42 N. W. 125, such restriction was, by implication, treated as valid. As pointed out in the mentioned brief, many cases have assumed validity of such a stipulation, often holding that it may be waived. Maday v. Roth, 160 Mich. 289, 125 N. W. 13,136 Am. St. Rep. 441, cited in 39 Cyc. 1646; Foley v. Dwyer, 122 Mich. 587, 81 N. W. 569;Rodenhouse v. De Golia, 198 Mich. 402, 164 N. W. 488;Shively v. Semi-Tropic L. & W. Co., 99 Cal. 259, 33 P. 848;Laguna L. & W. Co. v. Greenwood, 92 Cal. App. 570, 268 P. 699;Wilson v. Reuter, 29 Iowa, 176;McPheeters v. Ronning, 95 Minn. 164, 103 N. W. 889;Spilman v. New Rockford Inv. Co., 52 N. D. 169, 201 N. W. 691;Park v. McCoy, 121 Wash. 189, 208 P. 1098.

Others have sustained validity: Olcott v. Heermans, 3 Hun. (N. Y.) 431; Cranston v. Wheeler, 37 Hun. 63; Farone v. Hall, 128 Misc. Rep. 794, 220 N. Y. S. 1;Smith v. Martin, 94 Or. 132, 185 P. 236;Boyd v. Bondy, 113 Wash. 384,194 N. W. 393.

In neither Cutler v. Lovinger, 212 Mich. 272, 180 N. W. 462, nor Hull v. Hostettler, 224 Mich. 365, 194 N. W. 996, is there a denial that, as against the vendor, the restriction is valid. In the first case the vendor was not a party. In both cases the assignment by vendee was treated as valid, and such assignments are generally so regarded as between assignor...