Case Name: WILLIAMS v. RICHARDS
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1930-03-07
Citations: 250 Mich. 165
Docket Number: Docket No. 127, Calendar No. 34,805
Parties: WILLIAMS v. RICHARDS.
Judges: Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. RICHARDS.
Partition — Specific Performance — Judgment—Res Adjudicata. .
In suit for partition, where defendants filed cross-bill for specific performance of alleged oral agreement by plaintiff to purchase their respective interests for certain amount, decree of court below in favor of plaintiff on grounds of former adjudication of question of oral agreement, and that alleged oral agreement had not in fact been made, is affirmed, on appeal.
Appeal from Wayne; Brennan (Vincent M.), J.
Submitted January 15, 1930.
(Docket No. 127, Calendar No. 34,805.)
Decided March 7, 1930.
Bill by Thomas Williams and another against Irene Richards and another for partition of realty. Cross-bill by defendants for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement. From a decree granting plaintiff relief prayed, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Lynch & Hinhs, for plaintiffs.
Louis B. Ver Wiebe, for defendants.-

Opinion:
Clark, J.
Plaintiffs and defendants own as tenants in common a house and lot in Detroit. Defendants, contending that plaintiff, Thomas Williams, had agreed orally with them to purchase their respective interests and to pay them each therefor $2,500, sought specific performance of the alleged oral agreement, which was refused by decree of the Wayne circuit and the decree on appeal was affirmed here. Forler v. Williams, 242 Mich. 639. In the case at bar plaintiffs seek partition and defendants present again their demand for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement. The trial court granted plaintiffs the relief prayed and held defendants were not entitled to relief, on two grounds, namely, the holding and decree in the former case, and the alleged agreement had not in fact been made. 'Defendants have appealed.
There has been former adjudication. Nothing more need be said, but we add in aid of finality, as did the trial court, that we find the alleged agreement not made.
Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.
Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.