election doctrine in Michigan

1997Under the doctrine of election, a “person cannot accept and reject the instrument, or, having availed himself of it as to part, defeat its provisions in any other part.” Id.

1997Under the doctrine of election, a "person cannot accept and reject the instrument, or, having availed himself of it as to part, defeat its provisions in any other part." Id.

1997Finally, although respondents would have to show prejudice under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Public Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 508 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); Lilly v Townsend, 110 Mich 253, 258-259 ; 68 NW 136 (1896), our decision is based on the doctrine of election.

1997Finally, although respondents would have to show prejudice under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Public Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 508 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); Lilly v Townsend, 110 Mich 253, 258-259 ; 68 NW 136 (1896), our decision is based on the doctrine of election.

1997In re Joffe, 143 Ill App 3d 438, 440-441; 97 Ill Dec 588; 493 NE2d 70 (1986); 96 CJS, Wills, § 1149, p 944, n 73.

1997In re Joffe, 143 Ill.App.3d 438, 440-441 , 97 Ill.

1997Finally, although respondents would have to show prejudice under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Public Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 508 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); Lilly v Townsend, 110 Mich 253, 258-259 ; 68 NW 136 (1896), our decision is based on the doctrine of election.

1997Finally, although respondents would have to show prejudice under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Public Health Dep’t v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495, 508 ; 550 NW2d 515 (1996); Lilly v Townsend, 110 Mich 253, 258-259 ; 68 NW 136 (1896), our decision is based on the doctrine of election.

2019Id. at 454 .

2016Such evidence has not been presented here.” Id.

1997In re Joffe, 143 Ill.App.3d 438, 440-441 , 97 Ill.

1987In Johnson v Muskegon, supra, this Court held that "[s]ince the benefits under the disability pension and the workmen’s compensation statute are 'like benefits’ the plaintiff must elect between the two [pursuant to § 161], and be bound by such an election.” 61 Mich App 127 .

1983Ielmini v Bessemer National Bank, 298 Mich 59 ; 298 NW 404 (1941); Gloeser v Moore, 284 Mich 106 ; 278 NW 781 (1938).

1983Ielmini v Bessemer National Bank, 298 Mich 59 ; 298 NW 404 (1941); Gloeser v Moore, 284 Mich 106 ; 278 NW 781 (1938).

1983Ielmini v Bessemer National Bank, 298 Mich 59 ; 298 NW 404 (1941); Gloeser v Moore, 284 Mich 106 ; 278 NW 781 (1938).

1983Ielmini v Bessemer National Bank, 298 Mich 59 ; 298 NW 404 (1941); Gloeser v Moore, 284 Mich 106 ; 278 NW 781 (1938).

1983See Fraser, Election of Remedies: An Anachronism, 29 Okla L Rev 1 (1976); Patterson, Improvements in the Law of Restitution, 40 Cornell L Q 667 (1955); Yerkes, Election of Remedies in Cases of Fraudulent Misrepresentation, 26 S Cal L Rev 157 (1953); Note, Election of Remedies: A Delusion?, 38 Colum L Rev 292 (1938); Hine, Election of Remedies, A Criticism, 26 Harv L Rev 707 (1913); Dobbs, Remedies, § 1.5, p 13; 1 Palmer, Law of Restitution, § 3.10, p 283. 2 Glover v Radford, 120 Mich 542 ; 79 NW 803 (1899). 3 Note, Election of Remedies: A Delusion?, 38 Colum L Rev 292, 295 (1938). 4 We also se

1983See Fraser, Election of Remedies: An Anachronism, 29 Okla L Rev 1 (1976); Patterson, Improvements in the Law of Restitution, 40 Cornell L Q 667 (1955); Yerkes, Election of Remedies in Cases of Fraudulent Misrepresentation, 26 S Cal L Rev 157 (1953); Note, Election of Remedies: A Delusion?, 38 Colum L Rev 292 (1938); Hine, Election of Remedies, A Criticism, 26 Harv L Rev 707 (1913); Dobbs, Remedies, § 1.5, p 13; 1 Palmer, Law of Restitution, § 3.10, p 283. 2 Glover v Radford, 120 Mich 542 ; 79 NW 803 (1899). 3 Note, Election of Remedies: A Delusion?, 38 Colum L Rev 292, 295 (1938). 4 We also se

1974A majority of the jurisdictions where the question has arisen has held that a decree of separation is not a bar to an absolute divorce on the same ground, that the two remedies are not inconsistent and the doctrine of election does not apply, that the two have different objects and effects, one being in a sense ancillary to the other, that the cause of action is not the same and there is therefore no merger of the cause of action (see Klinger v Klinger, 79 SD 182 ; 109 NW2d 633 ; 90 ALR2d 742 [1961]; Kunze v Kunze, 153 Minn 5; 189 NW 447 ; 25 ALR 1045 [1922]; Jenkins v Jenkins, 125 Cal App 2d

1974A majority of the jurisdictions where the question has arisen has held that a decree of separation is not a bar to an absolute divorce on the same ground, that the two remedies are not inconsistent and the doctrine of election does not apply, that the two have different objects and effects, one being in a sense ancillary to the other, that the cause of action is not the same and there is therefore no merger of the cause of action (see Klinger v Klinger, 79 SD 182 ; 109 NW2d 633 ; 90 ALR2d 742 [1961]; Kunze v Kunze, 153 Minn 5; 189 NW 447 ; 25 ALR 1045 [1922]; Jenkins v Jenkins, 125 Cal App 2d

1974In all of the foregoing the previously discussed case, Murdock v Murdock, 148 App Div 564 ; 132 NYS 964 [1911], is cited in support of such position.

1974In all of the foregoing the previously discussed case, Murdock v Murdock, 148 App Div 564 ; 132 NYS 964 [1911], is cited in support of such position.

1974A majority of the jurisdictions where the question has arisen has held that a decree of separation is not a bar to an absolute divorce on the same ground, that the two remedies are not inconsistent and the doctrine of election does not apply, that the two have different objects and effects, one being in a sense ancillary to the other, that the cause of action is not the same and there is therefore no merger of the cause of action (see Klinger v Klinger, 79 SD 182 ; 109 NW2d 633 ; 90 ALR2d 742 [1961]; Kunze v Kunze, 153 Minn 5; 189 NW 447 ; 25 ALR 1045 [1922]; Jenkins v Jenkins, 125 Cal App 2d

1974A majority of the jurisdictions where the question has arisen has held that a decree of separation is not a bar to an absolute divorce on the same ground, that the two remedies are not inconsistent and the doctrine of election does not apply, that the two have different objects and effects, one being in a sense ancillary to the other, that the cause of action is not the same and there is therefore no merger of the cause of action (see Klinger v Klinger, 79 SD 182 ; 109 NW2d 633 ; 90 ALR2d 742 [1961]; Kunze v Kunze, 153 Minn 5; 189 NW 447 ; 25 ALR 1045 [1922]; Jenkins v Jenkins, 125 Cal App 2d

1963In the recent case of Aiken v. Conser, 342 Mich 29 , this Court reaffirmed what has always been the rule in this State, that is, that “A person cannot accept and reject the same instrument, or, having availed himself of it as to part, defeat its provisions in any other part as the doctrine of election, an extension of law of equitable estoppel, prevents the assertion of repugnant rights.” (Headnote in Aiken, supra.) This Court held in the leading case of Jacobs v. Miller, 50 Mich 119, 126, 127 , as follows: “Among the rules which have become axiomatic is one that a party must be consistent and

1963In the recent case of Aiken v. Conser, 342 Mich 29 , this Court reaffirmed what has always been the rule in this State, that is, that “A person cannot accept and reject the same instrument, or, having availed himself of it as to part, defeat its provisions in any other part as the doctrine of election, an extension of law of equitable estoppel, prevents the assertion of repugnant rights.” (Headnote in Aiken, supra.) This Court held in the leading case of Jacobs v. Miller, 50 Mich 119, 126, 127 , as follows: “Among the rules which have become axiomatic is one that a party must be consistent and

1942Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 415 ( 26 L.

1942Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 415 ( 26 L.

1933Plaintiff relies upon Hoehn v. Schenck, 221 App. Div. 371 ( 223 N. Y.

1933Plaintiff relies upon Hoehn v. Schenck, 221 App. Div. 371 ( 223 N. Y.

1930Sullivan v. Ross’ Estate, 113 Mich. 311 ; In re Brofee’s Estate, 206 Mich. 107 ; 20 C.

1930Sullivan v. Ross’ Estate, 113 Mich. 311 ; In re Brofee’s Estate, 206 Mich. 107 ; 20 C.

1929Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich. 580 , it was said by Mr. Justice Fellows : “But a complete answer to plaintiff’s assault on the validity of the act lies in the fact that plaintiff has accepted its provisions and has had the benefit of them.