Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 26 / Act 385 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.14 (2026)

Separate contract for printing and sale of former volumes.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


Act 385 of 1927


26.14 Separate contract for printing and sale of former volumes.

Sec. 14.

    In any publication for and letting of contracts, the board of state auditors shall let as a separate part of such contract the publication of reports from the plates of former volumes owned by the state, as now provided by law, the same to be published and bound in like manner, style, and quality, and put and kept on sale, at such separate contract price in like manner as new reports.

History: 1927, Act 385, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 536 ;-- CL 1948, 26.14

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1938–1982 · leading case: Lantis v. Cook, 69 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 1955).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lantis v. Cook, 69 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 1955). “Furthermore, although it has been applicable to real property in Michigan since the enactment of PA 1949, No 38, in eases where deeds creating future estates were executed after the effective date of that act, the rule was superseded in Michigan, as relates to lands, from 1847…”
Clark v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 555 F. Supp. 512 (E.D. Mich. 1982). “See Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 1982 Supplement, § 26.14. The Patsy decision is suggestive of a narrow orientation toward Parratt.”
Kethman v. Oceola Twp., 276 N.W.2d 529 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “There is no indication that this permit was anything more than a written promise to enjoy the privilege of operating a teen club, in Roseville, on the terms named for the period specified, subject to the city’s absolute right to revoke this privilege, pursuant to the procedure…”
Loomis v. Laramie, 282 N.W. 876 (Mich. 1938). “§§26.14, 26.15). The trial court further found that the will and codicils were valid except for the trust and that *711 the trust could be deleted and the balance of the will sustained as valid.”
Johnson v. Atchinson, 106 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 1961). “15 [Stat Ann §§ 26.14, 26.15]); repealed by PA 1949, No 38 (CLS 1956, § 554.”
Bateson v. Bateson, 293 N.W. 705 (Mich. 1940). · cites it 2× “§§26.14, 26.15). The circuit judge found no fraud and that the deed expressed the then intention of plaintiff, but, inasmuch as one provision was void and the full purpose of plaintiff was rendered abortive thereby, set the deed aside.”
Bishop v. Hartman, 37 N.W.2d 885 (Mich. 1949). “15 [Stat Ann §§ 26.14, 26.15]), and in violation of the rule against perpetuities, and a determination that plaintiffs Josephine A.”
Snyder v. Potter, 43 N.W.2d 922 (Mich. 1950). “Plaintiff’s bill of complaint prays that certain of the trust provisions of the will be decreed to be void “as unduly suspensive of the right of alienation” in violation of the statute in existence at testatrix’s death (CL 1948, §§ 554.”
Debuck v. Bousson, 294 N.W. 135 (Mich. 1940). “§§ 26.14 and 26.15), prohibiting suspension of the power of alienation beyond the statutory period.”
Miller v. Curtiss, 43 N.W.2d 834 (Mich. 1950). “15 (Stat Ann §§ 26.14, 26.15). The next section, CL 1948, § 554.”
Van Tyne v. Pratt, 289 N.W. 275 (Mich. 1939). “§§26.14, 26.15] read: “Every future estate shall be void in its creation, which shall suspend the absolute power of alienation for a longer period than is prescribed in this chapter; such power of alienation is suspended when there are no persons in being, by whom an absolute…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.