Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 566 / R.S. of 1846
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.110 (2026)

Court of chancery; powers not abridged.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Revised Statutes of 1846


R.S. of 1846


566.110 Court of chancery; powers not abridged.

Sec. 10.

    Nothing in this chapter contained shall be construed to abridge the powers of the court of chancery to compel the specific performance of agreements, in cases of part performance of such agreements.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 80 ;-- CL 1857, 3181 ;-- CL 1871, 4696 ;-- How. 6183 ;-- CL 1897, 9513 ;-- CL 1915, 11979 ;-- CL 1929, 13415 ;-- CL 1948, 566.110

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1950–2024 · leading case: Jaye v. Tobin, 202 N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jaye v. Tobin, 202 N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “They may not enforce the contracts at law (damages) or in equity (specific performance).”
Bruno v. Zwirkoski, 335 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “906, and MCL 566.108; MSA 26.908. However, the absence of a writing does not prevent a court from ordering specific performance of a contract which has been partly performed.”
Miller Glass Co., Inc. v. Kushmaul, 164 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “At the hearing on the motion, plaintiff cited CL 1948, § 566.110 (Stat Ann 1953 Rev § 26.910) as the basis for raising a question of fact and therefore defeating the motion, since full performance had been *349 alleged.”
Ouellette v. Belanger, 91 N.W.2d 905 (Mich. 1958). · cites it 2× “The court is particularly interested in CL 1948, § 566.110 (Stat Ann 1953 Rev §26.910), which says: ‘Nothing in this chapter contained shall be construed to abridge the powers of the court of chancery to compel the specific performance of agreements, in cases of part performance…”
Est. of Arnold Theodore Holmes v. Larry Davenport (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Critical to defendant’s argument on appeal is MCL 566.110, which provides, “Nothing in this chapter contained shall be construed to abridge the powers of the court of chancery to compel the specific performance of agreements, in cases of part performance of such agreements.”
Jaques v. Smith, 233 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “Therefore, the contract alleged is void, MCLA 566.108; MSA 26.”
Coronet Dev. Co. v. F.S.W., Inc., 142 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “4 CL 1948, § 566.110 (Stat Ann 1953 Rev § 26.910).”
North Am. Brokers LLC v. Howell Pub. Schs., 913 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “And MCL 566.110 provides as follows: “Nothing in this chapter [i.”
Julia E Mendez v. Germain Gonzalez-Bello (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Our Legislature made clear that partial performance may operate as an exception to the statute of frauds, stating in MCL 566.110 that “Nothing in this chapter [Chapter 566] contained shall be construed to abridge the powers of the court of chancery to compel the specific…”
Arlen Kundinger v. Dale Kundinger (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “According to plaintiff, because he attempted to tender the money he allegedly owed to defendant, the partial-performance exception applies and the parties’ agreement is not void.”
Needham v. Hurand, 44 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1950). “to hear the testimony; and that plaintiff’s performance of her part of the agreement by surrender of her right to a year’s occupancy of 1551 Detroit street under her lease and holding herself in readiness to occupy the new premises subject to the new lease agreement constituted…”
Jenks v. Jenks, 247 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “The trial court found sufficient part performance to bring the oral contract within MCLA 566.110; MSA 26.910. This finding is supported by the record.”
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.