Case Name: BALE v. MICHIGAN TONTINE INVESTMENT CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1903-03-23
Citations: 132 Mich. 479
Docket Number: Docket No. 1
Parties: BALE v. MICHIGAN TONTINE INVESTMENT CO.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
BALE v. MICHIGAN TONTINE INVESTMENT CO.
Corporations — Fraudulent Contract — Equity Jurisdiction.
This case is substantially like Edwards v. Michigan Tontine Investment Co., ante, 1. The fact that complainant, after ascertaining the fraudulent conduct of defendants, refused to continue payments upon his contract, does not justify a different result.
Appeal from Ionia; Stone (George P.), J., presiding.
Submitted January 6, 1903.
(Docket No. 1.)
Decided March 23, 1903.
Bill by John J. Bale against the Michigan Tontine Investment Company and others for an accounting and the appointment of a receiver. From an order overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
N. O. Griswold and O. L. & C. B. Barden, for complainant.
A. A. Ellis, B. A. Hawley, and Morse & Locke, for defendants.

Opinion:
Montgomery, J.
This case is before us on demurrer to the bill of complaint. In only one respect does it differ in any substantial way from the case of Edwards v. Michigan Tontine Investment Co., ante, 1 (92 N. W. 491), in which case we held that the bill stated a case for equity jurisdiction. The particular in which the present case differs from that is that the present bill avers that the complainant, after ascertaining the fraudulent conduct of the defendants, and that their contract was ultra vires, 'refused to continue payments upon his contract. This averment does not justify a different result. If the charges in the bill are maintained, the complainant ought to be placed in statu quo.
The order overruling the demurrer will be affirmed, with costs, and the case remanded for further proceedings.
The other Justices concurred.