Sorge v. Dickie, 199 Mich. 251. The abstract showed a previous bill for specific performance brought by another party which was then pending. Such an abstract fails to show a merchantable title in the vendor.

Lake Erie Land Co. v. Chilinski, 197 Mich. 214. Where the contract provides for an abstract showing a merchantable title, such title must be shown in the abstract. If the abstract does not show a merchantable title, the provision of the contract is not satisfied by parol evidence showing a merchantable title in fact.

Hicks v. Smith, 183 Mich. 37. A person holding title to land through a tax deed can convey a marketable title to land to a purchaser under a land contract after such notices have been served for the perfection of the title as required by law. In this case it was claimed that the notices required by law to perfect the title under a tax deed were not legally and properly served.

Rogers v. Eaton, 181 Mich. 620. It was claimed here that the contract for the sale of land was void because the vendor at the time the contract was entered into could not give a good title to the same, although the vendor was able to give such title at the time the contract was to be performed. It is not essential that the vendor have the title to the land at the time he enters into the contract, if he is able to give good title at the time of performance.

Darling v. Haff, 175 Mich. 304. The property of the vendor was encumbered by a deed to secure a loan at the time the contract was entered into, but he was able to give good title at the time of performance. The purchaser was not in a position to claim fraud or deceit in not disclosing the condition of the title at the time the contract was entered into.

Silfver v. Daenzer, 167 Mich. 362. Vendor's title to the land at the time the land contract was executed was defective. Because of the defect the vendee attempted to rescind the contract and demand the return of the money paid. At the time the vendor was having the title perfected, and in fact had the title perfected at the time he was bound to perform under the terms of the contract. The vendor cannot rescind the contract because of defective title at the time the contract was executed, if the vendee was able to clear up the title and actually did have the title cleared up at the time he was bound to perform.

Cossett v. O'Riley, 160 Mich. 101. A suit was pending to set aside an assignment of mortgage against the land that the defendant had contracted to sell to plaintiff. A lis pendens of said suit had been filed. The fact that the vendor believed his statements to be true at the time that he made them does not relieve him of the effects of his false statement where he has agreed to give a good and merchantable title to the land. But if he is able to make the title good and offers to do so, the contract is not subject to rescission for the fraud.

Weaver v. Richards, 144 Mich. 395. The record did not show that the vendor had acquired the alleged outstanding interests of two heirs in the lands. Under a contract to convey land, the vendor is bound to convey to the purchaser a merchantable title, viz., one which is unassailable on the face of the record as well as in fact.

Schwartz v. Woodruff, 132 Mich. 513. One, who had obtained land on contract, having assigned to three others an undivided one-fourth interest in said contract, cannot give a perfect title to another who has notice of the assignment.

Boynton v. Veldman, 131 Mich. 555. Vendee takes the position that vendor cannot give a marketable title to the premises under a land contract because the vendor is owner of the land in common with another party named Bell. Bell and the vendor obtained their interests in said land by different Instruments and at different times. Vendor purchased the tax titles to said land, said land having been sold for taxes because of Bell's failure to pay the taxes. Bell never made any objection to the purchase of these titles by the vendor. Five years have elapsed since said purchase of the tax titles and Bell has not made any claim to the property.

Held that the vendor can give a good and marketable title to the premises.

Walker v. Gillman, 127 Mich. 269. vendor obtained title to land through a foreclosure sale which took place more than 10 years after the decree was entered. The title was at least doubtful, so the vendor could not give a good title to the land.

Maynard v. Davis, 127 Mich. 571. A warranty deed signed by the wife in blank and afterwards filled in by the husband does not bar the dower interest of the wife in the property, and such deed does not convey a marketable title.

Todd v. McLaughlin, 125 Mich. 263. It is claimed that as certain attachments placed upon land which had been sold by means of a land contract had been withdrawn, and that a mortgage and assignment for the benefit of creditors by the vendor had been released, that the vendor could give a good and marketable title to the land. This cannot be done, as the attaching creditors, the assignee for the benefit of creditors, and the party holding the mortgage were not made parties defendants to the foreclosure proceedings, which had been brought by the vendor to compel performance of the contract.

Ford v. Wright, 114 Mich. 122, 2 Howell's Stat. Sec. 8702, provides that all persons who are minors when their right to sue for land first accrues may bring an action any time within five years after attaining their majority. An administrator of an estate and guardian of the minor children, who has purchased a portion of the estate at a judicial sale, cannot give a perfect title to such property within five years from the time that the youngest minor becomes of age. If there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the title is good the title is not marketable.

Barnard v. Brown, 112 Mich. 452. In this case the vendor under the land contract obtained possession of the land by adverse possession. If the title is in fee and unencumbered, it is not necessary that the title be perfect upon the record in order to make it a marketable title. A marketable title is one of such character as should assure to the vendee the quiet and peacable enjoyment of the property, and one which is free from encumbrance.

Platt v. Newman, 71 Mich. 112. Where the contract for the sale of lands provides that the vendee shall be protected from all interference in regard to the title of land, both legal and otherwise, the vendee is not obliged to rely on the warran ties or covenants of the deed. He is entitled to a perfect title. The fact that the vendor was the devisee in a will of the property conveyed in the contract, where the estate has not been settled by probate proceedings, does not make it possible in itself for the vendor to give a perfect title, as it does not settle the matter of claims that may be outstanding against the estate.

Dikeman, et al. v. Arnold, 71 Mich. 656. If land contracted to be conveyed in a land contract is encumbered or clouded by an outstanding life estate, the vendor cannot convey a good and marketable title, as there is a reasonable doubt as to the sufficiency of the title.

Scadin v. Sherwood, 67 Mich. 230. The title to the property sold on a land contract was encumbered by an execution sale which had been previously made. It is the contention of the defendants that the execution sale is void and that the plaintiffs can recover the land by an ejectment suit, and therefore cannot repudiate the contract. Held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a good and marketable title, and cannot be compelled to accept land where they would be compelled to litigate for the same.

Gale v. Goult, et al., 40 Mich. 515. A grantee by voluntary deed, where no fraud has been shown, has a good title as against the grantor and any subsequent grantee or mortgagee under him, or any subsequent creditor.

Curran v. Rogers, 35 Mich. 220. The mere fact that a mortgage on real property has not been released from the records if such mortgage has been actually paid will not pre vent the owner from giving a good and marketable title to the property.

Allen v. Atkinson, 21 Mich. 351. Where one contracts to sell land and the contract is silent as to the title, it is presumed that the title is good, yet nevertheless the vendee is entitled to a good and marketable title to the land. Where the record shows an apparent encumbrance on the land the vendee has a right to a reasonable time to investigate the title before carrying out his part of the contract.