Case ID: mich_256/html/0333-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Potter, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAMHOFF v. DANIEL.
    Specific Performance — Agreement to Lease — Fraud—Equity.
    Specific performance of agreement to lease, induced by misrepresentations of plaintiff’s agent, was properly denied.
    On effect of mistake of fact by defendant on right to specific performance of a contract induced thereby, see annotation in 15 L. B. A. (N. S.) 81.
    Appeal from Jackson; Simpson (John), J.
    Submitted October 9, 1931.
    (Docket No. 81, Calendar No. 35,680.)
    Decided December 8, 1931.
    
      Bill by Michael Lamhoff against Thomas I. Daniel and another for specific performance of an agreement to lease real estate. Decree for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Rosenburg & Lawrence (Frank C. Painter, of counsel), for plaintiff.
    
      Reuben H. Rossman, for defendants.
   Potter, J.

Plaintiff filed, a bill for specific performance of an alleged agreement to lease made with defendants December 13, 1929. Defendants were the owners of real estate in Jackson, Michigan. The premises were leased by defendants to a tenant, Chris Tannis. Plaintiff had been a partner of Tannis, but had sold out his interest to Tannis. Plaintiff desired to get a lease of the premises. Defendants had lost their copy of the Tannis lease. Plaintiff’s agent represented to defendants the Tannis lease expired August 1, 1930. In fact it expired August 1, 1931. Defendants relied upon the representations made by plaintiff’s agent, in making the agreement sought to be enforced. They were mistaken as to the date of the expiration of the outstanding lease. This mistake was brought about by the misrepresentations of plaintiff’s agent. Defendants were deceived thereby. Plaintiff cannot ask specific performance of a contract entered into by defendants by mistake, which mistake was induced by the false representations of plaintiff’s agent. The.trial court so held. Decree affirmed, with costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.