Case Name: LARKINS v. COHEN
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1937-04-29
Citations: 279 Mich. 499
Docket Number: Docket No. 111, Calendar No. 39,328
Parties: LARKINS v. COHEN.
Judges: Fead, C. J., and North and Btttzel, JJ., concurred with Wiest, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 279
Pages: 499–505

Head Matter:
LARKINS v. COHEN.
1. Porciblb Entry and Detainer — -Landlord and Tenant — -Unexecuted Surrender — Eraud—Third Parties.
Pact that purpose of agreement between landlord and tenant to surrender lease was to defeat rights of third parties in leasehold interest held, not to prevent determination of rights between parties to lease in summary proceeding where surrender agreement was never fully executed.
2. Judgment — Equity—Res Judicata — Landlord and Tenant—
Surrender.
Dismissal of bill by tenant and cross-bill by landlord praying determination of respective rights under lease and surrender agreement on ground that by latter instrument parties thereto, in attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon parties interested in leasehold estate placed themselves in a position from which equity would not afford relief to either, held, not an adjudication of rights barring remedies- at law.
Sharpe, Potter, and Chandler, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Wayne; Lamb (Fred S.), J., presiding.
Submitted January 19, 1937.
(Docket No. 111, Calendar No. 39,328.)
Decided April 29, 1937.
Summary proceeding by Thomas Larkins and others to recover possession of land from Philip Cohen and wife. From dismissal of complaint by circuit court commissioner, plaintiffs appealed to circuit court. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Richard I. Lawson and Walter R. McLean (William B. Giles, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Joseph B. Beckenstein, for defendants.

Opinion:
Wiest, J.
The fraudulent purpose accomplished nothing. It was intended to defeat rights of third parties. It cannot be employed as between the parties to the fraud. The corporation was not formed.
As between these parties, if the old lease is still effective, rights thereunder can be tried out in the summary proceeding.
Dismissal of the bill and the answer in the nature of a cross-bill was no adjudication of rights and left the parties to their remedies at law.
The judgment is reversed, with costs to plaintiff, and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Fead, C. J., and North and Btttzel, JJ., concurred with Wiest, J.