In the accompanying note 60 we have collected those Michigan decisions where the option has been upheld.

57. Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 19 S. E. 527, 21 L. R. A. 127.

58. Cheney v. Cook, 7 Wise. 413; Boston & N. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 3 Gushing 224; Ide v. Leiser, 10 Mont. 5, 24 Am. St. Reps. 17, 24 Pac. 695; Donahue v. Potter & G. Co., 63 Neb. 128, 88 N. W. 171; Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 111. 216.

59. Wayne Woods Land Co. v. Beeman, 211 Mich. 360, 178 N. W. 696.

60. Where plaintiffs entered into an option with the defendants for the purpose of purchasing a certain tract of land and they paid only a nominal money consideration, it was held that the option was valid and was not recoverable by the optioner during its time limit. Consideration in this case was $1.00 and it was for the purchase of 37 acres of land at $1,000 an acre, the time limit to be one year. The defendants attempted to have the option declared void on the ground that an unfair price for the land was offered. The Court held that the terms of the option would bind the defendants and it could not be revoked. George v. Schuman, 202 Mich. 241.

Where the plaintiffs had entered into a lease for certain premises for a period of three years for a certain sum, a bill for specific performance of the provision to purchase was filed by the plaintiffs after they had tendered the amount of the purchase price as agreed upon. The Court held that specific performance would be decreed and the description in the lease describing the premises as being at a certain street number was held to be sufficient description. The lessor in this case occupied the premises a certain period after the expiration of the lease and while suit was pending and it was held that the lessor should account for such use and occupation at the time of the filing of the bill. Nowicki v. Kopelczak, 195 Mich. 678.

A bill was filed for specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real estate wherein the property was owned by husband and wife. The option was signed by both the husband and wife, agreeing to sell the property within a certain time, but the defendants set up at the trial that the wife was not named in the option or lease, but merely signed it after her husband had signed it, and set up further that the option was void under the statute of frauds because not accepted in writing. The court held that the option was signed by both parties and one was grantor, and the fact that the other was not named as grantor did not invalidate the instrument, and that the wife signed to make it effective, which under the laws of this state requires that a deed to property held by entirety be signed by both husband and wife. The failure of the wife to sign the option was held not fatal and specific performance was decreed. Agar v. Streeter, 183 Mich. 600.

The defendants in this case executed a contract for a 99-year lease of certain property with the provision therein that the plaintiff could purchase the same within the time of the lease for a stated amount. The plaintiff filed a bill for specific performance of the contract and the defendants set up as a defense that the agreement was void and that it lacked mutuality and was never accepted in writing by the plaintiff, and also that the agreement was indefinite and uncertain. The court held that the failure of the lessee to sign the instrument was not material, citing Smith v. Mathis, 174 Mich. 262, and Mull v. Smith, 132 Mich. 618.

The fact that the agreement specified the rent to be paid so much per year was sufficiently definite to be susceptible of specific performance, citing Gibbens v. Thompson, 21 Minn. 298.

And the fact that no time was specified for the purchase of the property did not invalidate the agreement, for the plaintiffs had the right to purchase the property at any time during the period of the lease on tendering the amount named. Bushman v. Faltis, 184 Mich. 172.

Two brothers owned property together and held themselves out as a partnership. One of the partners gave an option to the plaintiff for the sale of the property owned jointly by the two brothers. Upon a bill for specific performance the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance upon the ground that the property was held as partnership property by the two defendants, although only one of the partners signed the option. Nichols v. Burcham, 177 Mich. 601.

Plaintiff entered into an agreement for the lease of certain premises within a certain period. The plaintiffs tendered the amount of the purchase price to the defendants and demanded a deed from them, who refused to carry forth the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff continued in possession and