Storrs v. Scougale

• Decision Date: 07 June 1882
• Citation: 48 Mich. 387,12 N.W. 502
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: STORRS and another v. SCOUGALE and another.

12 N.W. 502

48 Mich. 387

STORRS and another v. SCOUGALE and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 7, 1882

In a chancery case where testimony was taken before a commissioner, an attempt was made to impeach the character of one of the parties, and a physician testified that he had attended upon a woman who had a private disease and who was said to have been employed in the family of this party. Held that in giving this testimony the physician grossly violated the rules of professional ethics and the statute which prohibits physicians from revealing facts concerning their patients; that the commissioner might well have refused to take testimony given in such plain violation of law; and that if it had been called to the attention of the judge he should have stricken it from the record of his own motion.

One who places himself in the position of confidential adviser of a person who seeks his aid to escape from threatened criminal proceedings, and to settle charges brought against him, is a trustee, and has the burden of showing good faith in any bargains or transfers which he may meanwhile make with the person who thus relies upon his advice.

COOLEY, J.

The bill in this case was filed to set aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances of real and personal property. The transaction whereby the frauds are supposed to have been consummated are singularly complicated, and to some extent have the appearance of having purposely been made so with a view to preventing their unravelment. The papers which were executed from time to time while they were going on have been very far from representing the true state of the dealings and they have not always been in the hands of the party who in the usual course of business dealing, would be expected to hold them. Moneys have also been paid out from time to time under circumstances precluding our ascertaining to a certainty whether they were the moneys of the party paying them, or of the party who is charged with the payment. These facts among others have rendered the investigation difficult though the main features of the case stand out distinct and prominent.

In the year 1878 and until he deeded it as hereinafter mentioned James R. Storrs, commonly called Riley Storrs, was owner of a farm consisting of 128 acres in the township of Venice Shiawasee county, subject to a life estate in his father Harvey Storrs, who was then upwards of 60 years of age. Harvey Storrs seems to have been a weak man, and was having trouble with a second wife whom he had recently married and who had left him. Riley Storrs was worse than weak, for he was addicted to an excessive use of intoxicating drinks, and was squandering his estate. His wife was in trouble about this, and also seems to have suspected him of faithlessness in respect to his marriage vows. His farm was worth perhaps $7,500, and he had considerable personal property, included in which was a mortgage for $1,600 or thereabouts given by one Hughes. In this condition, according to the theory of the bill, the defendants fixed their attention upon Riley Storrs, and entered into a conspiracy to defraud him out of his property. Riley was owing some debts, and these and the suspicions of his wife, and his own weakness and bad habits, made him an easy victim of a conspiracy, if one was found. Then a girl supposed to be without virtue had worked in his house, and this furnished opportunity for suspicions or for charges. There were similar charges in connection with another girl who had been in the neighborhood. In February, 1875, Wallace had his first dealings with Riley Storrs, and bought from him a small mortgage. Riley's wife about that time made a charge of adultery against him, and he says he went to Wallace for advice in all his troubles, and paid him $100 to act as his adviser. Wallace was not a lawyer, but though he does not admit that he consented to stand as Riley's adviser, his own evidence is convincing that he did. He admits having kept the $100 out of money received on one of Riley's securities. A mortgage belonging to Riley against one Hughes was then in pledge for a demand of between $600 and $700, and this demand Wallace paid off for Riley and took a transfer of the mortgage to himself. He also paid or bought up some small demands against Riley, and took from him a mortgage of $875 on the farm to cover them. The date of this mortgage is October 15, 1879. He also obtained from Riley some chattel mortgages, the consideration for which does not very plainly appear. Wallace claims to have made various payments for and to Riley besides those above mentioned and among others one of $500 to Jerome W. Turner for professional services in Riley's behalf. For this payment he took a bill of sale from Riley of a growing crop of wheat, and when the wheat was harvested received most of the proceeds. We are not convinced that Turner was paid more than the clear proceeds of the wheat, though Wallace succeeded afterwards in having a part of the $500 included in a real estate mortgage hereinafter mentioned. As the payment to Turner was a large one, it is somewhat singular that he was not called as a witness to prove it; but Wallace contented himself with putting in what purported to be a receipt to himself for the amount, which of course was no evidence as against Riley. Other securities held by Riley besides those mentioned, amounting to some $1,200 or $1,300, were obtained from him by Wallace in the course of the year.

In April, 1879, according to Riley, he was arrested on a charge made by one Johnson of incest with his little girl. He was at first put in jail, but afterwards taken to a public office, where as he says persons professing to be friends frightened him by the expression of positive opinions that he was certain to "go over the road," and advised him to fly to Canada. Five hundred dollars to get away with was promised him, and the path of escape was marked out. They induced him to execute a note for $2,000 for all this, but by the next morning he recovered his courage and demanded the surrender of the note, proposing to face the charge. The note was given up to him, and the charge broke down on examination and he was discharged. With this affair neither of the defendants is shown to have been concerned, and it is important only as showing Riley's surroundings and state of mind.

Scougale appears in the case as prominent actor in connection with certain lands in Wisconsin. Scougale kept a public house in Durand, and in an interview with Harvey Storrs which took place in November, 1879, told him he had some nice land in Wisconsin, with a saloon and other buildings upon it, where there was a good opening for making money, and that he would trade this land for the Venice farm. He suggested that Storrs should go out with him and look at the land and Storrs, apparently thinking that this might afford a good opportunity to Riley and himself for getting away from the troubles that surrounded them at Venice, agreed to go to Wisconsin as suggested. They went out there and found the land, but according to Storrs it was quite different in quality and in the buildings from what had been represented. Besides, the legal title was in a railroad company, and such right as Scougale had was an equitable claim based upon previous occupancy and improvements, and even this was disputed by another party who was in possession. When he discovered the condition of things, Harvey Storrs, as he testifies, refused to have anything to do with the trade, and being out of money wrote to Riley to send him the means of returning home. Scougale testifies on the other hand that with the assistance of Storrs he took forcible possession of the property; that Storrs expressed himself satisfied with it and wrote Riley advising a trade for it, and also gave to Scougale a deed his own interest in the Venice land. With this deed Scougale returned to Michigan, and influenced by it and by the supposed letter from his father Riley consummated the trade.

The letter above referred to is produced in evidence, but Harvey Storrs pronounces it a forgery. He also testifies that while in Wisconsin he wrote letters to Riley inconsistent with this which Riley declares he did not receive. To account for this Harvey Storrs says that the post-office where the letters were mailed was kept by a relative of Scougale, and Scougale had the opportunity to overhaul the mail and pocket letters he did not wish should go forward. The supposed deed from Harvey Storrs to Scougale bears date December 4, 1879, and the deed from Riley was obtained January 22, 1880. The Harvey storrs deed purported to be acknowledged before one Stevens, a justice of the peace, and it was put on record March 12, 1880. According to the testimony on the part of the defence, this deed was accidentally destroyed by fire in the burning of the public house which has been mentioned.

There is something very mysterious about this Harvey Storrs deed. Stephens, the officer who is said to have taken the acknowledgment, was confined to his house by a mortal illness at its date, and was actually dead before the deed was recorded and before anything had occurred which was likely to raise any question upon it. The parties appear to have gone a good deal out of their way to have the acknowledgment taken before this particular officer, and for this no sufficient reason appears. The speedy death of the officer is by itself no suggestion of forgery, but when there are other circumstances which are unmistakably suspicious, it may have an important bearing. A shrewd rogue who had planned to put a false deed on record, where a false certificate of acknowledgment would attest its genuineness would be careful above all things to make sure that the...