Case Name: SCOTT v. TIERNEY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-05-16
Citations: 263 Mich. 136
Docket Number: Docket No. 49, Calendar No. 37,100
Parties: SCOTT v. TIERNEY.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
SCOTT v. TIERNEY.
Vendor and Purchaser — Foreclosure—Balance Due.
In suit to foreclose land contract providing for certain instalments to be made semi-annually, but whole amount to be paid within certain time, plaintiffs are entitled to decree for whole amount remaining unpaid, where time for payment in full has expired.
Appeal from Oakland; Gillespie (Glenn C.), J.
Submitted April 7, 1933.
(Docket No. 49, Calendar No. 37,100.)
Decided May 16, 1933.
Bill by James E. Scott and another against Francis J. Tierney and another to foreclose a land contract. From decree for plaintiffs for certain instalments and taxes only, they appeal.
Reversed, and remanded for decree for whole amount.
Robert D. Heitsch, for plaintiffs.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
Plaintiffs filed bill to foreclose a land contract and had decree for certain instalments and taxes, not for the whole amount due, and they have appealed.
The contract made in June, 1925, provided:
' ' The whole amount of four thousand dollars shall be paid with interest on or before five years from the date of this contract,"—
to be paid,-—
"Five hundred dollars on the execution and delivery of this agreement, $200 or more, interest included, November 1, 1926, and $200 or more, interest included, every six months thereafter, with inter est at the rate of six and one-half per cent, per annum, to he paid semi-annually on the whole sum from time to time remaining unpaid. ' '
This means that the purchasers are to pay $200 or more every six months, hut the whole amount must he paid on or before five years. As the hill was filed more than five years after the making of the contract, the whole amount was due, and plaintiffs were entitled to decree accordingly.
Reversed, with costs. Plaintiffs may have decree with remand.
McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.