Remeau v. Mills
| Decision Date | 31 October 1871 |
| Citation | 24 Mich. 15 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Louis Remeau v. Thomas Mills and another |
Submitted on Briefs October 24, 1871.
Appeal in chancery from Muskegon circuit.
The bill in this cause was filed by Louis Remeau, in the circuit court for the county of Muskegon in chancery against Thomas Mills and Henry N. Smith; first, to restrain the defendant Mills from suing out of the circuit court for the county of Muskegon a writ of possession on a judgment rendered in said court in a suit in ejectment wherein the said Mills was plaintiff, and the complainant was defendant; secondly, to declare a deed of the premises in controversy in the ejectment suit, executed and delivered by the defendant Smith to the defendant Mills, a mortgage; and thirdly, that the defendants release and quit-claim all their right and interest to said premises to the complainant. The defendants demurred to the bill, and on the hearing a decree was entered sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill with costs from which the complainant appeals to this court.
Decree affirmed with costs.
Thomas B. Church, for complainant.
John T Holmes, for defendants.
This is an appeal from a decree allowing a demurrer and dismissing the bill.
The complainant claims that in 1862, he became a settler on a parcel of swamp land under the acts of 1859, and 1861 (Sess. L. 1859, p. 862; Sess. L. 1861, p. 145), and that subsequently the land was sold by the state, in contravention of his rights as settler, to Smith, who shortly after conveyed to Mills, both having notice of his claim; and that Mills had brought ejectment against him which he asks to have restrained.
He also represents that after his license was obtained, and before the sale to Smith, he was informed that he had been drafted to serve in the army, and supposing, notwithstanding he was an alien and had never voted, that he was subject to the draft, he fled to Canada to avoid the service, leaving his family and brother-in-law to look after and protect his rights. He further represents, that after the commencement of the ejectment suit he obtained a deed of the land from the governor, who was "duly authorized" to give it.
The objections to the bill are numerous. It is not only defective for want of material matter, but is likewise defective for want of fullness, clearness and directness of statement in respect to the matter it shadows forth. The law requires the settler, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Filer
... ... to conditions imposed by law (Attorney General v ... Smith, 31 Mich. 359; Attorney General v ... Thomas, 31 Mich. 365; Remeau v. Mills, 24 Mich ... 15; Hunter v. Hemphill, 6 Mo. 106; Smith v ... Vasbinder, 77 Pa. 127; Bronson v. Kukuk, 3 ... Dill. 490; Bisson v. Curry, ... ...
- Sturgeon v. Hampton
-
Bangs v. Stephenson
... ... the land from the governor of this state, who was "duly ... authorized" to give it. Remeau v. Mills, 24 ... Mich. 15-17 ... The ... issue of this certificate by the proper officer might ... perhaps, as a general rule, under ... ...
-
Bangs v. Stephenson
...alleged that he had obtained a deed of the land from the governor of this state, who was “duly authorized” to give it. Remeau v. Mills, 24 Mich. 15-17. The issue of this certificate by the proper officer might perhaps, as a general rule, under the presumption that public officers perform th......