Case Name: STRAUSS v. BRAIKER
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-08-29
Citations: 264 Mich. 359
Docket Number: Docket No. 61, Calendar No. 37,092
Parties: STRAUSS v. BRAIKER.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 264
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
STRAUSS v. BRAIKER.
This case is controlled by James S. Holden Co. v. Applebaum, 263 Mich. 507.
Appeal from Wayne; Lamb (Fred S.), J., presiding.
Submitted June 8, 1933.
(Docket No. 61, Calendar No. 37,092.)
Decided August 29, 1933.
Bill by Herman S. Strauss, as successor-trustee, against Sol Braiker and others to foreclose a trust mortgage and for deficiency decree. From decree for .deficiency against defendant David Davis, he appeals.
Affirmed.
George E. Brand, for plaintiff.
Sempliner, Dewey, Stanton & Bushnell (A. E. Smith, of counsel), for defendant Davis.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
Dora Braiker, mortgagor in a mortgage to secure an issue of bonds, conveyed to Julius Berman and David Davis by warranty deed, tbe grantees assuming and agreeing to pay the mortgage debt.
Tbe question here on tbe appeal of Davis is tbe right of tbe mortgagee and trustee to have personal decree for deficiency against him, and tbe denial of such right is based upon a purported assignment by Dora Braiker of "tbe covenant in said deed, that tbe vendees therein assume and agree to pay tbe mortgages therein set forth," to Edward J. Strata and Gerson Cass, otherwise strangers to tbe matter.
After tbe conveyance to Davis, and (quoting from brief) — "during tbe four years that Davis managed tbe property Davis made the sinking fund deposits required by tbe mortgage. Tbe Strauss Company on August 29, 1925, December 15, 1925, and April 30, 1928, delivered Canceled bonds and coupons so paid to defendant Davis and received from him written receipts therefor," before tbe purported assignment notices of default had been given by tbe trustee. On the facts, the case is controlled by James S. Molden Co. v. Applebaum, 263 Mich. 507. See, also, Federal Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Shapiro, 219 Mich. 13.
It might be added that tbe assignment here to strangers is nothing beyond an idle gesture. Woodcock v. Bostic, 118 N. C. 822 (24 S. E. 362).
Affirmed, with costs.
McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.