Adams v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 10 May 1864
• Citation: 12 Mich. 346
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Thomas K. Adams v. Henry M. Bradley and others

12 Mich. 346

Thomas K. Adams v. Henry M. Bradley and others

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 10, 1864

Heard April 26, 1864; April 27, 1864; April 28, 1864,

Appeal in chancery from Bay Circuit. The facts appear by the opinion.

Decree transmitted.

W. L Webber and G. V. N. Lothrop, for complainant.

J. G Sutherland, for defendant.

OPINION

Campbell J.:

This bill is filed to foreclose a mortgage, made by Lot Frost and Charles Bradley to complainant, in pursuance of a contract of purchase made with complainant, and George S. Lester and Mark Carrington, who, shortly previous to the date of the contract, had dissolved partnership.

The property mortgaged had been used by the partnership firm, under the name of Lester, Carrington & Co., and consisted of the mill property, which had been used for lumbering purposes, and of several other parcels of less value.

The mortgage was dated May 1st, 1855, and was made to Adams, individually, as he was authorized to settle up the partnership concerns.

The three Bradleys answer separately. Several defenses are set up, and it will be necessary to refer to them singly, in order to make the case intelligible.

At the time when the transactions took place with Frost and Bradley, the title to one undivided half of the mill lot was defective. It had originally been owned by John P. C. Riggs and Henry Riggs, for whom their father purchased two lots, intending one for each, but having them conveyed in common. This mill lot was conveyed by John P. C. Riggs, as his own, in 1842, by title to which George S. Lester succeeded by purchase in the spring of 1854, when the lot was vacant and unimproved, and worth about one hundred dollars. This purchase was made with a view of erecting a saw-mill, which was done at the expense of Lester, Carrington & Co., during the same year. Lester, in 1854, conveyed to Carrington and Adams each one undivided third part of the lot, and they all subsequently conveyed to Frost and Bradley by separate deeds, the mortgage now in controversy being given for purchase money. Frost conveyed his interest to Charles Bradley, who conveyed the entire interest to Henry M. Bradley, December 31, 1857. In April, 1859, Henry Riggs and wife conveyed an undivided half of the mill lot to Nathan B. Bradley, who now claims to own it, and the other defendants insist that, as an outstanding and valid title to one-half of the mill lot, it should procure an abatement of one-half of the mortgage, on the ground of failure of consideration to that extent.

It appears clearly in the case that, in 1859, prior to the conveyance to Nathan Bradley, Henry Riggs and John P. C. Riggs came to an understanding, whereby each was to convey to the grantees of the other his undivided interest in the lots which had been therefore conveyed, whereby Henry was to release his interest in this mill lot, and John was to release his interest in the other lot which Henry had sold. It appears that the lots purchased for John and Henry Riggs, by their father, although never actually partitioned, had been conveyed in severalty, as if they had been. In pursuance of this understanding, Henry Riggs conveyed his half of the mill lot to Nathan Bradley, who represented that he wanted it to complete the title derived from John P. C. Riggs. The consideration paid was fifty dollars, which, however, was volunteered by Nathan--Henry Riggs not requiring it--and which was really paid by Charles or Henry M. Bradley, it is not very clear which. Charles Bradley had consulted counsel about buying it, and we are satisfied it was obtained by an understanding among the defendants. As against complainant, or the firm of Lester, Carrington & Co., we are satisfied this conveyance to Nathan Bradley must be held to inure to the benefit of the mortgage title. It was so designed by Riggs, and he would not have conveyed it otherwise. Nathan Bradley took it as a mere trustee, and it must be regarded as a mere release, which he will be decreed to make operative. Any other construction would give effect to a gross fraud. He is properly made a party, for the purpose of compelling this redress.

A second defense relied upon by Henry M. Bradley, to reduce the mortgage, is a prior mortgage now owned by him, given by George S. Lester to Thomas J. Stead, of Providence, Rhode Island, December 1, 1854, upon an undivided third part of the mill premises. Complainant also seeks in his bill to have this Stead mortgage postponed to his, on the ground that the property was partnership property, and was therefore subject to all the partnership equities. The mortgage to Stead was made for...