Bartlett v. Haviland

• Decision Date: 28 July 1892
• Citation: 92 Mich. 552,52 N.W. 1008
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BARTLETT v. HAVILAND.

52 N.W. 1008

92 Mich. 552

BARTLETT v. HAVILAND.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 28, 1892

Error to circuit court, Grand Traverse county; J. G. RAMSDELL Judge.

Trover by Wayland W. Bartlett against Adaline A. Haviland. From a judgment rendered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Pratt & Davis, for appellant.

Dunham & Preston, for appellee.

GRANT, J.

This is an action of trover for the conversion of 1 shingle mill frame, 1 knot sawing machine and arbor, 7 small circular saws, 200 feet of belting, 50 feet of shafting, 20 pulleys, 1 gemming machine complete, 1 shingle jointer complete, 1 wheelbarrow, 1 crowbar, 1 cant hook, and 1 edger complete. Plaintiff had verdict and judgment. The evidence tended to show the following facts: In 1872 a copartnership, composed of the plaintiff and two others, under the firm name of Bartlett, Bonny & Saxton, owned a piece of land upon which was situated a portable steam sawmill, containing a boiler engine, and double circular mill, with some belting, which was covered by a building so that it could be taken out without injury. The firm, while owning both the land and the mill, gave a mortgage on the land, and a chattel mortgage upon the mill and machinery, to one Gregg. Subsequently plaintiff acquired the interest of his partners in both the land and the mill. This was in 1873. In 1876 the real-estate mortgage to Gregg was foreclosed. After the foreclosure plaintiff continued in possession of both the land and the mill as tenant. In 1880 the purchaser of the land at the foreclosure sale sold and conveyed it to plaintiff's wife, taking back a mortgage for part of the purchase price. Subsequently this mortgage was discharged and Mrs. Bartlett gave a real-estate mortgage to Gage, who was evidently the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, for $200, dated January 14, 1884. Gage knew that plaintiff was in possession of the premises, and understood that he claimed to be running the mill, and had some machinery there, and he did not suppose that his mortgage covered the machinery. This mortgage was assigned by Gage to the defendant, who did not examine the property, and made no inquiries as to who was in possession. The property now in dispute was placed upon the premises after the execution of the first mortgage, and before the execution of the second mortgage by Mrs. Bartlett to Gage. Plaintiff took his wife's acknowledgment to...