Benedict v. Roome

• Citation: 106 Mich. 378,64 N.W. 193
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 26 September 1895
• Parties: BENEDICT v. ROOME ET AL.

64 N.W. 193

106 Mich. 378

BENEDICT v. ROOME ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 26, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Ionia county, in chancery; Frank D. M Davis, Judge.

Action by Sarah J. Benedict against William P. Roome, James B. Weir Jr., and William N. Banks, a copartnership under the firm name of William P. Roome & Co., to have set aside a mortgage executed by her to defendants, and alleged to have been obtained by threats. There was a decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Lemuel Clute and Miller & Clute, for appellants.

R. A Hawley, for appellee.

GRANT J.

Complainant's husband had been, for some years prior to the date of the mortgage involved in this case, a traveling salesman for the defendants, a copartnership of New York City, under the firm name of William P. Roome & Co. He collected moneys, amounting in all to about $800, belonging to his employers, and appropriated the same to his own use. Under his own admissions, he was guilty of the crime of embezzlement. His wife, the complainant, knew nothing of this state of affairs until about the time of the giving of the mortgage. He had no property. She owned a house and lot in the city of Ionia which were deeded to her by her parents, in consideration of which she agreed to support them during their lives. Her father was dead, her mother living. Being unable to secure the payment of the money from Mr. Benedict, the defendants placed the claim in the hands of their attorneys for collection. One of the attorneys went to her house, a day or two before the mortgage was given, to see her in regard to the matter. Mr. Benedict came in before the attorney had disclosed his business, and nothing further was said. June 19, 1893, one of the attorneys wrote a letter to complainant requesting her to call at their office as soon as convenient, and he would finish the explanation he commenced with her at her house. She did not go, but, on the morning of June 21st, she met the attorney in a store, who asked her to go to his office. On the way he told her that her husband was guilty of embezzlement, and that it was a criminal offense. In the office he explained the matter further, and read to her letters from Mr. Benedict to the firm, acknowledging his use of the money. The attorney told her that he thought that perhaps she might be able to assist Mr. Benedict. She told him that she had nothing except her home, and that she felt she had no right to use that until her mother's death. She declined to give the mortgage. Defendant Weir arrived at Ionia about 3 o'clock p. m. of the same day. He sent a letter to complainant, requesting her to meet him at the office of his attorneys. She went, and Mr. Weir then informed her that he must have security or the money. She said she would go home and talk with her mother, and return the next...