From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sooey v. Zacharski

Supreme Court of Michigan
May 18, 1948
32 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. 1948)

Opinion

Docket No. 54, Calendar No. 43,991.

Decided May 18, 1948.

Appeal from Macomb; Noe (Alton H.), J. Submitted April 9, 1948. (Docket No. 54, Calendar No. 43,991.) Decided May 18, 1948.

Bill by Ernest C. Sooey against Frank Zacharski and wife for specific performance of alleged contract for sale of real estate. Decree for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E.O. Kugel, for plaintiff.

Riseman, Lemke Piotrowski, for defendants.


Plaintiff filed this bill of complaint in the circuit court for Macomb county in chancery seeking to compel specific performance of the following claimed memorandum for sale of land:

"January 24, 1946, received of Mr. Ernest Sooey, $50 deposit on lot 11, East Detroit, Michigan, Henry Stevens Sub., Gratiot corner of Williams, total price $2,000. This deal to be closed 30 days from date. FRANK ZACHARSKI, LUCILLE ZACHARSKI."

After a hearing on the merits, the circuit judge dismissed the bill of complaint and plaintiff appeals.

Assuming, as these parties have, that the foregoing is a sufficient memorandum in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds, plaintiff has failed to establish any right to specific performance.

See 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13411 (Stat. Ann. § 26.906). — REPORTER.

Plaintiff in testifying before the court admitted that he had made no offer or tender of payment of the purchase price within said 30 days; nor did he make any deposit of such money in escrow. The record is barren of any proof that the defendants either did or would have refused to perform, if performance had been offered by the plaintiff within said time. Plaintiff did not offer performance within said 30 days and has not shown any excuse for his failure to do so.

One who fails to accept an option to sell real estate according to its terms is not entitled to specific performance. Bergman v. Dykhouse, 316 Mich. 315.

Under the above circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance. The decree dismissing his bill of complaint is affirmed but without costs, appellees not having timely filed a brief in this Court.

BUSHNELL, C.J., and SHARPE, REID, NORTH, DETHMERS, BUTZEL, and CARR, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Sooey v. Zacharski

Supreme Court of Michigan
May 18, 1948
32 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. 1948)
Case details for

Sooey v. Zacharski

Case Details

Full title:SOOEY v. ZACHARSKI

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: May 18, 1948

Citations

32 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. 1948)
32 N.W.2d 479

Citing Cases

O'Brien v. R-J Development Corp.

Until an option is accepted, specific performance cannot be awarded. See Miller v. Hiett, 133 Colo. 576, 298…

O'Brien v. R-J Development Corp.

An option, to the extent it remains unexecuted, is a unilateral instrument which lacks the mutual elements of…