Arthur v. Caverly

• Decision Date: 08 December 1893
• Citation: 56 N.W. 1102,98 Mich. 82
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ARTHUR v. CAVERLY et ux.

56 N.W. 1102

98 Mich. 82

ARTHUR v. CAVERLY et ux.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 8, 1893

Error to circuit court, Huron county; Watson Beach, Judge.

Assumpsit on covenant of warranty by Margaret A. Arthur against Redford Caverly and Susannah, his wife. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

W. T Bope, for appellant.

T. B Woodworth, for appellees.

McGRATH J.

Plaintiff owned certain village property, and defendant Redford Caverly was the owner of a farm. An agreement was entered into between plaintiff and Redford Caverly for an exchange, and the same was made. The defendant Susannah Caverly, wife of Redford, joined in the deed of the farm to plaintiff, and plaintiff conveyed the village property to Susannah Caverly. Plaintiff claims that Redford Caverly represented that there were but two mortgages on the farm, whereas there were three. The deed from the Caverlys was a warranty deed, excepting the two mortgages from the warranty, but not the third. Plaintiff has paid off the mortgage in question, and sold the farm. She now brings assumpsit to recover the amount paid, joining husband and wife as defendants. The court below found that the only evidence connecting defendant Susannah Caverly with any promises or agreement is the covenant in the deed, and that such covenant was that of her husband only that plaintiff sues in assumpsit upon the covenants in the deed; that said deed was a warranty against all incumbrances except two mortgages; that the amount agreed upon as the amount unpaid on the two mortgages was $1,013; that at the time of the execution of the deed by defendants there was a third mortgage unpaid, in the sum of $436, which plaintiff has since been obliged to pay; that the consideration paid by plaintiff for the deed was wholly paid to defendant Susannah Caverly by virtue of the conveyance to her; that such consideration was so paid, and said conveyance so made, at the request of defendant Redford Caverly; and that said deed was accepted by her, and recorded.

The court erred in rendering judgment for defendants upon these facts. The defendant Susannah Caverly received the entire consideration for the conveyance in which she joined. She must be presumed to have known the purpose of that conveyance, and the condition of the title to the property thereby conveyed. A wife who joins with her husband in a deed of lands for the purpose of securing the conveyance to...