Stevens v. Most, 111.
| Citation | 251 Mich. 23,231 N.W. 47 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 111.,111. |
| Parties | STEVENS et ux. v. MOST. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Oakland County; Glenn C. Gillespie, Judge.
Action by John Stevens and wife against Clark Most. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
J. Shurly Kennary, of Detroit, for appellant.
A. Floyd Blakeslee, of Pontiac, for appellees.
On September 12, 1925, Clark F. Most, defendant and appellant, entered into an executory contract to purchase property in Oakland county from John Stevens and wife, plaintiffs and appellees; $4,000 was the down payment, and a balance of $8,000 was payable in annual installments of $500 or more until reduced to $6,000, whereupon vendors were to execute a deed upon receiving a purchase-money mortgage for $6,000, payable on or before ten years from the date of the mortgage, with interest payable semiannually. On September 28, 1926, defendant paid one principal installment of $500, together with interest, but defaulted in making any further annual payments on the principal. In the early part of 1928, the annual installment of principal together with interest being overdue, vendors served notice of forfeiture, and began proceedings for repossession. The vendee thereupon paid interest amounting to $450 and attorney's fees of $35, and the contract was reinstated. Subsequently, on March 1, 1929, plaintiffs notified defendant that payments on the contract were past due, and eleven days later served him with a notice of forfeiture. Almost immediately thereafter plaintiffs began proceedings and recovered judgment before a circuit court commissioner in an action for repossession of the premises. On appeal to the circuit court this judgment was affirmed, whereupon the case was appealed to this court.
It is claimed that the circuit court commissioner erred in the computation of the amount found due vendors from vendee. One of the questions raised is whether in computing this amount the commissioner should have included any sum that first became due plaintiffs at a time subsequent to the notice of forfeiture, but prior to the taking of judgment before the circuit court commissioner. The notice of forfeiture claimed defaults in the payment of two installments of principal aggregating $1,000 for the years of 1927 and 1928, and of $1,350 for interest. It also notified defendant that he had failed to pay taxes for the years 1925, 1926, and 1927, aggregating $784.51. After the service of this notice of forfeiture, but prior to the time judgment was rendered by the circuit court commissioner, plaintiffs paid $435.40 for taxes for the years 1925 and 1926, and this amount was included in the amount found due by the circuit court commissioner. Defendant correctly claims that, after a valid declaration of forfeiture, the contract is ended and vendor discharged from his duty to convey and the vendee of his duty to pay. An action at law will not lie for recovery of any part of the purchase price, nor can suit in equity for foreclosure and deficiency decree be maintained. Chicago Boulevard Land Company v. Apartment Garages, Inc., 245 Mich. 448, 222 N. E. 697. However, this case also holds that ‘ejectment or summary proceedings to regain possession are no part of forfeiture.’ Summary proceedings before a circuit court commissioner provide a manner for the repossession of the premises after such forfeiture. They are brought under section 13244, 3 Comp. Laws 1915, which states:
‘Upon the return of such summons, if the same be returned duly served, and the defendant appears, such defendant may plead not guilty to the complaint, or if he neglect or refuse to plead thereto, such officer shall enter such plea for him, and such issue shall be tried and judgment shall be rendered, and the same proceedings shall be had thereon in all respects, and the costs shall be taxed and collected in the same manner as in cases of forcible entry or detainer, and with the like effect: Provided, That if it is claimed either upon the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Parkview Mem'l Ass'n
...Land Co. v. Apartment Garages, 245 Mcih. 448, 222 N.W. 697, and Balesh v. Alcott, 257 Mich. 352, 241 N.W. 216. See, also, Stevens v. Most, 251 Mich. 23, 231 N.W. 47;Dedmon v. Sarkesion, 252 Mich. 613, 233 N.W. 434;Picard v. Shapero, 255 Mich. 699, 239 N.W. 264;Trombley v. Koestlin, 266 Mcih......
-
Wilson v. Taylor
...contract. The seller was discharged from his duty to convey, and the purchaser was discharged from his duty to pay. See Stevens v. Most, 251 Mich. 23, 231 N.W. 47 (1930). In Stevens, this Court examined a situation similar to the instant case. The defendant in Stevens argued that the notice......
- Am. Enameled Brick & Tile Co. v. Brozek
-
Mortg. & Contract Co. v. Sage
...is exclusively one at law, it provides a quasi equitable method of being relieved of the judgment of restitution.’ Stevens v. Most, 251 Mich. 23, 25, 231 N. W. 47, 48. ‘Provisions affecting possession of mortgaged premises are matters of substance, but those affecting the remedy in order to......