| "{\"id\": \"1491536\", \"name\": \"HARVEY v. ZIMMER\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Harvey v. Zimmer\", \"decision_date\": \"1907-03-05\", \"docket_number\": \"Docket No. 23\", \"first_page\": \"371\", \"last_page\": \"372\", \"citations\": \"147 Mich. 371\", \"volume\": \"147\", \"reporter\": \"Michigan Reports\", \"court\": \"Michigan Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Michigan\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T19:52:51.924385+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"McAlvay, C. J., and Carpentr, Grant; and Moore, JJ., concurred.\", \"parties\": \"HARVEY v. ZIMMER.\", \"head_matter\": \"HARVEY v. ZIMMER.\\nSpecific Performance \\u2014 Contract to Convey \\u2014 Evidence.\\nOn a bill to enforce specific performance of an alleged oral contract, by which defendant agreed that complainant should live upon his farm and cultivate it on shares during his lifetime, and that the farm should belong to complainant on his death, evidence examined, and held, not sufficient to establish the contract.\\nAppeal from Ingham; Wiest, J.\\nSubmitted January 17, 1907.\\n(Docket No. 23.)\\nDecided March 5, 1907.\\nBill by Lizzie Harvey against Peter Zimmer to compel the specific performance of a land contract. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.\\nAffirmed.\\nWilliam T. Webb (Q. A. Smith and O. J. Hood, of counsel), for complainant.\\nBlack & Beasoner, for defendant.\", \"word_count\": \"285\", \"char_count\": \"1752\", \"text\": \"Hooker, J.\\nComplainant's bill, filed to compel specific performance of a contract alleged to have been, made be tween her father and herself, whereby she was to live upon and farm the premises in controversy upon shares during his lifetime, and upon his death the land should become hers, was dismissed upon the hearing, and she has appealed. The question is entirely one of fact, and there is little important testimony, except that of the complainant and her husband upon one side and her parents upon the other. There is certainly no preponderance of evidence in complainant's favor, especially when we consider that her statement that the arrangement was well understood and frequently talked in the family is denied by her parents and her brothers and sisters. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the record does not justify a reversal of the decree of the learned circuit judge.\\nThe decree is affirmed, with costs.\\nMcAlvay, C. J., and Carpentr, Grant; and Moore, JJ., concurred.\"}" |