Moran v. Palmer

Decision Date08 July 1865
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesCharles Moran v. Friend Palmer, Henrietta Taylor and Charles Taylor. Friend Palmer, Henrietta Taylor and Charles Taylor v. Charles Moran

May 9 1865; May 10, 1865; May 11, 1865, Heard

Appeal in chancery from Wayne circuit.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Decree of the court reversed, and the cross-bill dismissed.

Backus & Harbaugh, for appellants.

Wm Gray, S.D. Miller and G. V. N. Lothrop, for appellee.

Cooley J. Christiancy, J. and Martin, Ch. J. concurred. Campbell, J. did not sit in this case.

OPINION

Cooley J.:

The original bill was filed to quiet the title of complainant to lot thirty-seven in section eight, according to the governor and judges' plan of the city of Detroit. The bill alleges that the governor and judges conveyed the lot to Barnabas Campau, December 21, 1833; that the deed thereof was duly recorded in the register's office of the city of Detroit, December 19, 1834, and again, after being duly acknowledged and proved, in the register's office of Wayne county, November 29, 1859; that by due chain of conveyances, the title to said lot in fee simple became vested in Alexandrine M. Willis, who, with her husband, Richard S. Willis, conveyed the same to complainant, August 1, 1862, and that complainant now has the legal title to and is the sole owner in fee simple, and in the actual possession of the same. It then alleges a continuous possession of the premises by Campau, and those claiming under him, from the time he received his deed; that they have claimed to be the owners, paid taxes, made improvements, and performed all acts of owners; that the defendants now claim to be part owners of the premises; that at times they claim and pretend that they have rights under an unrecorded deed from said governor and judges to one of their ancestors and some other persons, prior to said deed to Campau, while, at other times, they pretend that they have such rights by reason of some legal proceedings between them and some parties other than the complainant, or any one, by, through, or under whom he derives title; that all such claims and pretenses are entirely unfounded, and constitute a cloud upon complainant's title, seriously decreasing the value or his property. Wherefore complainant prays relief, and that the court may decree and declare that complainant has a full, clear and perfect title to said lot, and that defendants have no interest or title in or to the same, and may award a perpetual injunction against their setting up or asserting any such claim or interest.

The defendants filed an answer, claiming an undivided one-third of the lot as heirs at law of Friend Palmer, senior, by virtue of the following conveyances: From the governor and judges to Michael Mayet, February 17, 1809; from Mayet to Jacob Smith, July 7, 1820, and from Jacob Smith to John, Thomas and Friend Palmer, July 16, 1820. The answer also shows that, under the said conveyances, and as such heirs at law, they brought suit in ejectment in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, against one De Graff, who is tenant of complainant, to recover the undivided interest so claimed by them, which suit was vigorously defended by complainant, and has resulted in a verdict in their favor. The answer also sets up other facts not material to the decision upon this bill, and a discussion of which is therefore omitted by us. Replication was filed to the answer, and proofs taken, establishing the existence of the several deeds as set forth, as well as the proceedings in the ejectment suit.

We have thus presented to us the anomaly of a party who asserts that he is possessed of a complete legal title to lands which are occupied by him, and who points out no difficulty in the way of his exhibiting and establishing such title, appealing to a court of equity for relief against the claims of other parties who are pressing their claims against him at law, and have already obtained an adjudication in their favor. Argument to show that this bill cannot be sustained, is entirely unnecessary. If the facts, as above stated, were fully set forth in the bill, it would be demurrable, and being presented by way of defense, they are a complete answer to complainant's case. A court of law is the appropriate tribunal for the trial of titles to land: Abbott v. Allen, 2 Johns. Ch., 520; Devaux v. City of Detroit, Har. Ch., 98. The claimant of a legal title has a right to have the facts upon which his claim is based submitted to a jury, and it is only when the remedy at law is inadequate that resort can be had to equity. Nothing is better settled than that equity will not aid in clearing a title to land when complainant's remedy at law is complete: Alton Marine and Fire Ins. Co. v. Buckmaster et al., 13 Ill. 201; Smith v. McConnell, 17 Ill. 135; Ritchie v. Dorland; 6 Cal. 33; Wolcott v. Robbins, 26 Conn. 236; Munson v. Munson, 28 Conn. 582; Shotwell v. Lawson, 30 Miss. 27; Murphy v. Blair, 12 Ind. 184. And when the party comes into equity for relief, he must set forth in his bill the circumstances which deprive him of a legal remedy: Williams v. Ayrault, 31 Barb. 364. A bill to quiet title on behalf of the legal owner, is only entertained where the party is not in a position to force the adverse claimant into a court of law to test its validity: Alton Marine and Fire Ins. Co. v. Buckmaster, 13 Ill. 201. This happens when the holder of the legal title is in possession, and an adverse claim is set up, which no steps are taken to enforce; but when each party claims the legal title, and the court of law is already possessed of the case, and it is not alleged that either fraud, accident or mistake has intervened to prevent the possessor establishing at law all the title which he claims, the remedy at law is perfect and equity can not interfere to take from a jury the title of the questions, which in such a case, belong to that tribunal. The more clearly the complainant establishes his title under such circumstances, the more clearly does he show that the relief he asks is not within the province of a court of equity.

The facts proved in this case, however, do not, in our opinion, establish a legal title in complainant; and it remains to be seen whether he can have any relief based upon equities which he may have shown to exist in himself against the title asserted and proved by defendants. These equities spring from estoppels in pais, which are not alluded to either in the bill or in the answer, though the facts from which they are supposed to spring have been fully proved. They are of a nature which, it is argued, should preclude the defendants from setting up and relying upon their legal title as against the equitable rights of complainant; but it is of little moment to complainant that they have been proved unless the issue is so framed that, according to the rules of equity pleading, the facts established can be made a foundation for relief.

The rule of pleading in equity is that "every fact essential to the plaintiff's title to maintain the bill and obtain the relief must be stated in the bill, otherwise the defect will be fatal. For no facts are properly in issue unless stated in the bill, and, of course, no proofs can be generally offered of facts not in the bill; nor can relief be granted for matters not charged, although they may be apparent from other parts of the pleadings and evidence, for the court pronounces its decree secundum allegata et probata: Story's Eq. Pl., § 257. See, also, Shepard, v. Shepard, 6 Conn. 37; Cowles v. Buchanan, 3 Iredell Ch., 374; Parker v. Carter, 18 Va. 273, 4 Munf. 273; Ellston v. Blanchard, 2 Scam. 420; De Tastet v. Tavernier, 1 Keene 169. The courts of this state have frequently decided that no relief can be given on evidence establishing a case not made by the bill: Cicotte v. Gagnier, 2 Mich. 381; Warner v. Whittaker, 6 Mich. 133; Bloomer v. Henderson, 8 Mich. 395; Boniver v. Caldwell, 8 Mich. 463; Barrows v. Baughman, 9 Mich. 213; Wurcherer v. Hewitt, 10 Mich. 453; Dunn v. Dunn, 11 Mich. 284; Peckham v. Buffam, 11 Mich. 529; Thayer v. Lane, Wal. Ch., 200. Even if the answer should disclose a clear title to relief, it cannot be resorted to as supplying allegations essential to the bill: Gres. Eq. Ev., 23; Savage v. Lane, 6 Har. 32; Jackson v. Ashton, 11 Pet. 229; Knox v. Smith, 45 U.S. 298, 4 HOW 298; Thomas v. Warner, 15 Vt. 110.

No relief, therefore, can be granted to complainant based upon the equitable title which he claims to have established, not only because such relief must be given upon a case radically different from that set forth, but also because the equitable circumstances relied upon would require to be specifically set forth. Estoppels, when they form the foundation of the relief asked, and are relied upon to defeat a legal title, cannot be proved unless alleged (see Cicotte v. Gagnier, 2 Mich. 381), so that, even if we could disregard the fact that the title of complainant is of a different nature from that claimed by the bill, there is obviously nothing in this bill to which we can apply the evidence which goes to establish the equities of complainant.

The defendants, however, have filed a cross-bill to have the undivided one-third interest which they claim in the premises partitioned and set off to them; and the issue taken upon this is so full and complete that we find the whole merits of the respective claims to this lot fully presented. The evidence was all taken to be used in both suits, and the bill and cross-bill were brought to a hearing together; and as the facts are for the most part undisputed, and all, which we deem material, are either admitted or established to our satisfaction, we shall now proceed to consider them...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Lamberton v. Pawloski
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1929
    ...at law, plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit in equity. Mr. Justice SHARPE relies herein upon Stockton v. Williams, Walk. Ch. 120; Moran v. Palmer, 13 Mich. 367;King v. Carpenter, 37 Mich. 363;Methodist Episcopal Church of Newark v. Clark, 41 Mich. 730, 3 N. W. 207;F. H. Wolf Brick Co. v. Lony......
  • Hawkins v. Dillman
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 18, 1934
  • Turner v. Lansing Tp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • July 27, 1981
    ...of which any partner had notice. Hubbardston Lumber Co. v. Bates, 31 Mich. 158 (1875). More recently, this Court, citing Moran v. Palmer, 13 Mich. 367 (1865), opined that each partner is a general partner of the others and what is known to one is supposedly known to all. Robbins v. Eotoff, ......
  • Bullion, Beck & Champion Mining Co. v. Eureka Hill Mining Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1886
    ...title, and there is nothing to prevent his establishing it as fully at law as in a court of equity:" S. C., 1 Dong., 546. In Moran v. Palmer, 13 Mich. 367, an ejectment suit been brought against a tenant; the landlord assumed the burden of defense. One trial had taken place and a verdict re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT