From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Bangs-McCutcheon, Inc.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Sep 16, 1932
244 N.W. 253 (Mich. 1932)

Opinion

Docket No. 140, Calendar No. 36,519.

Submitted June 22, 1932.

Decided September 16, 1932.

Appeal from Genesee; Gadola (Paul V.), J. Submitted June 22, 1932. (Docket No. 140, Calendar No. 36,519.) Decided September 16, 1932.

Bill by Fred Johnson and another against Bangs-McCutcheon, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and others to foreclose a land contract. Decree for plaintiffs. Defendants Huber and others appeal. Affirmed.

Neithercut Neithercut, for plaintiffs.

John Hal Engel, for defendants Huber, Brown, and Engel.


The defendants to this bill to foreclose a land contract are the vendee and its assignees. Plaintiffs had decree. Defendants, assignees, have appealed.

The right of a vendor, in foreclosure of a land contract in equity, to have decree for deficiency against vendee's assignees, who, in writing, have assumed the contract, is discussed and settled in Barnard v. Huff, 252 Mich. 258 (77 A.L.R. 259); Peoples Savings Bank v. Geistert, 253 Mich. 694; Hamburger v. Russell, 255 Mich. 696.

The defendants, assignees of vendee, asserted, by answer alone, fraud in the assignment to them. No rescission of such assignment had been effected. Such assignees here filed no cross-bill, sought no affirmative relief. Hence, no consideration can be given to their allegations of fraud.

Other points are attempted, but they call for no discussion.

Affirmed, with costs.

McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Bangs-McCutcheon, Inc.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Sep 16, 1932
244 N.W. 253 (Mich. 1932)
Case details for

Johnson v. Bangs-McCutcheon, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOHNSON v. BANGS-McCUTCHEON, INC

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Sep 16, 1932

Citations

244 N.W. 253 (Mich. 1932)
244 N.W. 253

Citing Cases

Bouchard v. Edwards

The allegations of the bill and testimony that defendant's rights were terminated must be considered in…

Barbour v. Thomas

In re Wolf Mfg. Industry (C.C.A.) 56 F.2d 64; Princess Amusement Co. v. Wells (C.C.A.) 271 F. 226; Dater v.…