Palmer v. Fox
Michigan Supreme Court
264 N.W. 361, 274 Mich. 252 (1936)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Louis G. Palmer & Company (Palmer) (plaintiff) contracted to sell a lot in one of its subdivisions to Fox (defendant). The contract provided a purchase price of $1,650, of which $247.50 was to be paid when the contract was executed, and the balance was to be paid in monthly installments of $16.50 over the next five years. In exchange for Fox tendering the purchase price, Palmer agreed to provide cement sidewalks on the property and to grade all streets, and either cinderize or gravel the streets. The contract also provided that at its election, Palmer would furnish water mains and lateral sewers in the streets and alleys of the subdivision. Palmer provided the water mains, lateral sewers, and cement sidewalks, but failed to cinderize or gravel the streets. Fox paid the initial price of $247.50 after the contract was executed, and paid additional monthly installments of $16.50 until February 11, 1931. Fox ceased making additional payments after that time due to Palmer’s failure to cinderize or gravel the streets. On February 7, 1933, Palmer brought suit in Michigan state court against Fox seeking the balance due on the contract plus interest, or $855.91. Fox argued that his promise to pay was dependent on Palmer’s promise to perform improvements, including cinderizing and graveling the streets. Fox argued that Palmer’s breach of this covenant excused his own performance. The trial court awarded damages of $855.91 to Palmer, and Fox appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Toy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.