Barnard v. Jennison
| Decision Date | 06 May 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 230 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William H. Barnard and another v. Luman Jennison and another |
Heard April 29, 1873; April 30, 1873.
Appeal in Chancery from Kent Circuit.
This is a bill to redeem from a deed given by way of security, and for an accounting as to the amount due. The defendants had been in possession, receiving the rents, and various other dealings and transactions between the parties, claimed to have a bearing upon the accounting, were introduced in evidence. The decree established complainant's right to redeem, and found a balance due from defendants of eight thousand six hundred and fifty-one dollars and ninety-six cents. From this decree the defendants appealed.
Decree for payment by the defendants should be reduced to this sum and in all other respects affirmed. Neither party recovered costs on the appeal, and the case remitted.
J. W Champlin and G. V. N. Lothrop, for complainants.
Miller & Rogers and Hughes, O'Brien & Smiley, for defendants.
We are entirely satisfied with the conclusions of the circuit judge on the main questions involved in this case. The conveyance of the Barnard House property to the defendants, though by deed absolute in form, was unquestionably by way of security merely, and the complainants were entitled to redeem.
But the allowance to complainants for the rent of the premises while held by defendants appears to us on the evidence to be excessive. We do not think defendants were exactly in the position of ordinary mortgagees who take possession by way of enforcing their security; they were agents of complainants as well as mortgagees, and for any failure to obtain full rental value for the premises, they are only fairly chargeable on the same grounds that an agent thus put in possession could be. They are charged by the decree with nine hundred dollars rent a year for the whole time they have had control, though it is shown the first tenant was to pay four hundred only, and the third five hundred; and nine hundred seems to us rather above, than below, what the evidence tends to show a fair rent to have been from year to year for the whole period, without taking into account any contingencies in loss of time in renting, or failure in collections, which, in case of such property as a second-class hotel, would be likely to be important. We have no idea from the evidence that defendants have received any such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisk v. Stewart
...47 Ill. 58; Hunter v. Hatch, 45 Ill. 178. In such cases the grantee must account for the rents and profits of the land, (Burnard v. Jennison, 27 Mich. 230; Van v. Warrell, 4 Abb. N.Y. App. 474; Meehan v. Forrester, 52 N.Y. 277; Bauhger v. Merryman, 32 Md. 185; Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 1......
-
Huxley v. Rice
...Atwater, 7 Mich. 12; Wadsworth v. Loranger, Har. Ch., 113; Fuller v. Parrish, 3 Mich. 211; Swetland v. Swetland, 3 Mich. 482; Barnard v. Jennison, 27 Mich. 230. The equity redemption cannot be separated from a mortgage, even by express agreement of the parties, Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 273; N......
-
Wasatch Min. Co. v. Jennings
...a mortgagee generally would not be entitled to such allowance." 2 Jones, Mortg. (3d Ed.) 1117. To this effect is the case of Barnard v. Jennison, 27 Mich. 230. authorities say that grantees in possession under a deed absolute in form, but given by way of security, do not stand in the same p......
- Sheahan v. Barry