Youngs v. Tuttle Hill Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 10,10 |
| Citation | 373 Mich. 145,128 N.W.2d 472 |
| Parties | Forrest YOUNGS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TUTTLE HILL CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, Leonard Bontekoe, and Viola Bontekoe, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Lawrence, Ulrich, Tripp & Barense, Ypsilanti, for plaintiff and appellant.
Mellott, Proud & Meader, Ann Arbor, for defendants and appellees.
Before KAVANAGH, C. J., and DETHMERS, KELLY, BLACK, SOURIS, SMITH O'HARA and ADAMS, JJ.
This is a chancery suit arising out of an alleged oral joint adventure between plaintiff and defendant Leonard Bontekoe for the purchase of certain land from plaintiff's relatives. Plaintiff claims his contribution was to obtain the consent of his relatives to the sale of the property, that Bontekoe was to contribute the entire purchase price, and that they were then to share equally in the cost of development and the profits.
Defendants say that plaintiff and Bontekoe agreed to share equally in the cost of the land, the cost of development, and the profits or losses.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's proofs the trial judge granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff had not proved the agreement because: (1) of the uncertainty of the terms of the agreement or contract as claimed by the plaintiff, (2) of the improbability of such a contract--that defendant Bontekoe would pay out $40,000 for property and give plaintiff a one-half interest in it merely for getting his relatives to sell the land, and (3) that the plaintiff had contradicted his own claims with his presented proofs due to the fact that it was shown an option held by plaintiff and defendant Bontekoe to purchase the land was exercised by Tuttle Hill Corporation to which corporate purchase at the time it was made plaintiff did not object.
The lengthy record in this matter presents the claims of the plaintiff from the first discussion of the purchase in the fall of 1960, through an initial stock issue of 100 shares each to plaintiff and defendant Bontekoe in Tuttle Hill Corporation, until there was a transfer to defendants Bontekoe and wife in June of 1961 of 4800 shares of the corporation stock in return for money they had furnished the corporation. Plaintiff and defendant Bontekoe each still hold their 100 shares of stock but plaintiff claims he has now been deprived of his equal ownership.
The money the Bontekoes furnished the corporation was used for the purchase of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Disner v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...7 E.g., Hi-Way Motor Company v. International Harvester Company, 398 Mich. 330, 336, 247 N.W.2d 813 (1976); Youngs v. Tuttle Hill Corp., 373 Mich. 145, 128 N.W.2d 472 (1964); Gorman v. Soble, 120 Mich.App. 831, 328 N.W.2d 119 (1983); Higgins v. Lawrence, D.P.M., P.C., 107 Mich.App. 178, 309......
-
Vining v. Comerica Bank (In re M.T.G.)
......242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)], Celotex [ Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265. ..., 247 N.W.2d 813,. 816 (Mich. 1976) (citing Youngs v. Tuttle Hill. Corp ., 128 N.W.2d 472, 473 (Mich. 1964)). . ......
-
Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
...Palmer v. Palmer, 194 Mich. 79, 81, 160 N.W. 404 (1916), "by clear, satisfactory and convincing" evidence, Youngs v. Tuttle Hill Corp., 373 Mich. 145, 147, 128 N.W.2d 472 (1964), trial courts should ensure that these standards are clearly satisfied with regard to all of the elements of a fr......
-
Appalachian Railcar Services v. Boatright Enter.
...by clear and convincing evidence, not merely a preponderance of the evidence. Hi-Way, 247 N.W.2d at 816 (citing Youngs v. Tuttle Hill Corp., 373 Mich. 145, 128 N.W.2d 472 (1964)). Therefore, to survive summary judgment, ARS must show a genuine issue as to whether it could prove fraudulent m......