Peoples Sav. Bank v. Geistert

9 Citing cases

  1. In re Cole

    29 F. Supp. 382 (W.D. Mich. 1939)   Cited 5 times

    The law is established in Michigan that a conveyance or assignment of a land contract imposes no obligation on the grantee or assignee to pay the debt. See Barnard v. Huff, 252 Mich. 258, 233 N.W. 213, 77 A.L.R. 259; People's Savings Bank v. Geistert, 253 Mich. 694, 235 N.W. 888. In the latter case it was said, 253 Mich. pages 697, 700, 235 N.W. pages 889, 890:

  2. Dolan v. Cuppari

    No. 345310 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2019)

    Moreover, while it may be true that Nancy was present for the proceedings and even during negotiations, our Supreme Court has explicitly noted that the mere fact that a party is present when a contract is created does not make them a party to it. Peoples Savings Bank v Geistert, 253 Mich 694, 707; 235 NW 888 (1931). Additionally, MCR 3.411(H), which governs actions to determine interests in land, states:

  3. Henock v. Yeamans

    340 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    This is true in Michigan where it seems that the vendor cannot recover from the assignee even where there has been an express agreement of the assignee to pay the amounts payable under the contract. Peoples Savings Bank v. Geistert, 253 Mich. 694, 235 N.W. 888. The general rule is the law of Florida. Jenkins v. City Ice Fuel Co., 118 Fla. 795, 160 So. 215. The district court properly denied relief. Its judgment of dismissal is

  4. Chatham Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Angier Chemical Co.

    347 Mass. 208 (Mass. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    Chapin v. Pike, 184 Mass. 184, 186. See Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Abbott, 131 Mass. 397, 406. This rule is in accord with that of several other jurisdictions. Wilson v. Beazley, 186 Cal. 437, 444. Lunt v. Lorscheider, 285 Ill. 589, 593. Peoples Sav. Bank v. Geistert, 253 Mich. 694, 698. Langel v. Betz, 250 N.Y. 159, 164. Bimrose v. Matthews, 78 Wn. 32, 37-38. Maloyfsky v. Schiraldi, 108 N.J. Eq. 190, 192-193, affd. 110 N.J. Eq. 660.

  5. Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Brown

    290 Mich. 433 (Mich. 1939)   Cited 48 times
    In Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Brown, 290 Mich. 433, 287 N.W. 798 (1939), the court discussed whether a statute permitting a third party beneficiary to directly enforce a contract applied so as to allow a mortgagee to sue the assuming grantees for a deficiency judgment where the assumption of the mortgage had occurred prior to the effective date of the statute.

    See Restatement of the Law of Contracts, chap. 6, p. 151 et seq. Michigan, however, has been one of the few remaining jurisdictions which have adhered to the old rule. Many of our statements to the effect that a third party cannot sue even though the contract was made for his benefit are collected in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice POTTER in Peoples Savings Bank v. Geistert, 253 Mich. 694. But there have been incursions into this rule as demonstrated by the cases cited in Smith v. Thompson, 250 Mich. 302 (73 A.L.R. 1389). This latter decision, our last definitive utterance on the question, went far toward bringing our law in accord with the almost unanimous view elsewhere.

  6. Garey v. Kelvinator Corp.

    279 Mich. 174 (Mich. 1937)   Cited 12 times
    In Garey v. Kelvinator Corp., 279 Mich. 174, it was held that the implied power and apparent authority of an agent is usually to be gathered from facts and circumstances and is generally a question for the jury.

    During the fall of 1926, while plaintiff claims that he was performing the services in question, Nizer sold all of its assets, except $10,000 in cash, to Kelvinator, then known as Electric Refrigeration Corporation, in consideration of the surrender and cancellation of all of Nizer's outstanding stock then owned by Electric, except a small amount, and Electric's written agreement to pay and discharge all of Nizer's liabilities. Defendant argues that plaintiff, as a third party beneficiary to this agreement, does not have an action at law on his claim, but must seek his relief, if any, in equity, citing Pearce v. Schneider, 242 Mich. 28; Tapert v. Schultz, 252 Mich. 39; Peoples Savings Bank v. Geistert, 253 Mich. 694, and other authorities therein mentioned. Plaintiff argues that he may maintain an action at law under the authority of Shadford v. Railway, 130 Mich. 300, and Morlock v. Mount Forest Fur Farms of America, Inc., 269 Mich. 549.

  7. Johnson v. Bangs-McCutcheon, Inc.

    244 N.W. 253 (Mich. 1932)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  8. Hamburger v. Russell

    238 N.W. 267 (Mich. 1931)   Cited 5 times

    POTTER, J. I dissent from the conclusions herein, it being ruled by Peoples Savings Bank v. Geistert, 253 Mich. 694.

  9. Keyes v. Scharer

    165 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 10 times
    In Keyes, the court specifically declined to apply the Uniform Commercial Code because it had been adopted in Michigan only shortly before the transaction was entered into which formed the basis of the lawsuit in Keyes.

    " 4 Corbin on Contracts, ยง 906, pp 629, 631. Compare Daniels v. Parker (1957), 209 Or. 419 ( 306 P.2d 735; Chatham Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Angier Chemical Co., Inc. (1964), 347 Mass. 208 ( 196 N.E.2d 852); Kreuger v. Campbell (1933), 264 Mich. 449; People's Savings Bank v. Geistert (1931), 253 Mich. 694, 712. Compare Plaza Investment Company v. Abel (1967), 8 Mich. App. 19, where a landlord's interest in land and a lease thereof was conveyed and assigned without express assumption of the landlord's obligations under the lease by the grantee-assignee.