Singer v. Hoffman Cake Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. CARO Trans Opportunities LLC v. Mobile Med. Response, Inc.

    No. 337074 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2018)

    And in any case, our Supreme Court has firmly rejected such a notion: "Mere forbearance does not of itself constitute a waiver." Singer v Hoffman Cake Co, 281 Mich 371, 374; 275 NW 177 (1937). The parties agree that MMR moved in on a date "early in August."

  2. Coburn v. Coburn

    230 Mich. App. 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    Exhibits offered on appeal that were either not offered to the court below or that were excluded by the lower court from the settled record on appeal are not properly part of the record on appeal. Dora v Lesinski, 351 Mich. 579, 581; 88 N.W.2d 592 (1958); Singer v Hoffman Cake Co, 281 Mich. 371, 375; 275 N.W. 177 (1937). 4.

  3. County of Lincoln v. Fischer

    339 P.2d 1084 (Or. 1959)   Cited 25 times
    In County of Lincoln v. Fischer et al, 216 Or. 421, 339 P.2d 1084 (1959), the county brought suit to quiet title to land it had sold on contract, under which none of the installment payments had been made. During the time between the making of the contract and an attempt by the county to cancel it, the purchaser (or his successor) made all property tax payments to the county, which accepted them. It appeared that the property had greatly increased in value in the interim.

    In fact, as intimated in the Gray case, the vendor must be vigilant in enforcing his rights. While Singer v. Hoffman Cake Co., 281 Mich. 371, 275 N.W. 177, holds that mere forbearance to sue for late payments is not a waiver; a notice of intent to forfeit and a notice of forfeiture had been given, and, in fact, the vendee could not pay. Pier v. Lee, 14 S.D. 600, 86 N.W. 642, on the other hand, allowed specific performance on a cross-claim presented in opposition to a suit to clear title under a contract which made time of the essence and provided for an optional forfeiture without notice. Some seven years before the suit was brought the defendant had defaulted, but the plaintiff had waited three months before declaring a forfeiture, and another month before bringing a detainer action.