Boardman v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 03 April 1872
• Citation: 24 Mich. 287
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Charles W. Taylor v. Francis D. Boardman and another

24 Mich. 287

Charles W. Taylor v. Francis D. Boardman and another

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 3, 1872

Heard January 5, 1872; January 6, 1872.

Appeal in chancery from Kent circuit.

Decree reversed and the bill dismissed, with costs of both courts.

Andrew T. McReynolds and Alfred Russell, for complainant.

E. S Eggleston and Jacob Ferris, for defendant Boardman; Charles C. Rood, in person, and Isaac H. Parish, and D. Darwin Hughes, for defendant Rood.

OPINION

Campbell J.

The bill in this cause was filed to enforce a trust or agreement under which Boardman was alleged to have become invested by redemption and otherwise, with the title to several parcels of land which had been sold under legal process against complainant, and with refusing to recognize or carry out his obligation to restore the titles to complainant upon the refunding of the moneys expended in the purchases and redemptions, with all proper allowances for services. The supplemental bill was intended to reach part of the same premises which had been bid off under a mortgage from complainant and wife to Rood, but which for reasons there set out were claimed to belong to complainant under similar equities involving a right to have the property restored on a just accounting and remuneration.

The record is too voluminous to admit of a full statement of all the facts proven. It will be more satisfactory to give a sufficient statement of our conclusions from the pleadings and testimony, as the substantial merits on both sides rest on familiar principles of equity. It is unfortunate that there is on several matters a direct conflict in the proofs. The case, however, furnishes adequate means, as we think, for a correct decision.

The bill shows, as the origin of the transactions under consideration, that in the early part of the year 1862, a very large and valuable property of the complainant had been sold on judgments against him; and that these sales had been made for the most part in January and May, 1861. Other sales were made in the year 1862, after the arrangement set up in the bill is charged to have been made, and defendant Boardman is now claimed to have obtained these as well as the earlier titles under that arrangement. There was at the time the transactions began, a judgment in favor of Buhl & Ducharme of Detroit for a little less than two hundred dollars, on which no execution had been sued out.

In February, 1862, when the complainant's right of redemption had expired on the January sales, and when none but judgment creditors could redeem from them, the bill charges that Boardman, who had been complainant's "attorney in various matters," and with whom complainant "had consulted respecting his embarrassments, and as to the most feasible means of raising money to relieve himself therefrom," came to complainant's residence and told him "he had been considering his affairs, and had, in his own mind, fixed upon a plan by which he could aid your orator and assist him to recover his property which had been sold, and to enable him to realize means with which to disembarrass himself; and spoke of the sales of your orator's property under the Eggleston and other executions, on the 19th day of January, 1861, and of the fact that the time allowed by law for your orator to redeem the premises sold under the said executions, had then expired; but said that if he had a judgment against your orator he could still redeem the property sold, as a judgment creditor, and that he would give your orator the benefit of such redemptions, and proposed to your orator to confess a judgment in his favor, saying that he could redeem the said property of your orator which had been sold as aforesaid, and that he would do so, and raise and advance the necessary means for that purpose, giving to your orator the benefit of such redemptions, requiring only that your orator should refund the money advanced, with interest, and a reasonable compensation for such time as he should expend in that business." Complainant alleges that he declined to give any such confession because he owed him nothing and it would be in fraud of creditors, but told him of the Buhl & Ducharme judgment and that there were also others attainable.

It is not alleged that any agreement or understanding was had at this time, but the bill avers that shortly afterwards complainant "learned from the said Boardman that he had procured the said Buhl & Ducharme judgment, and that it was assigned to him, and that he would raise the necessary means to redeem your orator's property, and would give your orator the benefit thereof as aforesaid."

To avoid confusion, it is important to keep the various transactions distinct. Up to this time the bill shows that the redemptions contemplated, were those upon sales made in January, 1861, and that no distinct agreement was made, either before or after the purchase of the Buhl & Ducharme judgment, beyond a mere statement by Boardman, of his intentions in complainant's favor, based upon no consideration and not charged as a specific contract. This portion of the case is rested by the bill and argument upon obligations arising out of confidential relations. The sales made in January, 1861, were of twenty-eight feet of lot one, in section two of the Grand Rapids plat (better known as the "store" property), and also of several parcels on what is described as "Tanner Taylor's addition"--a plat laid out by complainant, who was in the tanning business. The store lot was bid off on a judgment in favor of E. S. Eggleston, administrator of Henry R. Williams, to Peter R. L. Pierce, and also on a judgment in favor of Pratt & Beals, to those plaintiffs. This store lot had also been sold on a subsequent execution, in May, 1861, on two judgments, one in favor of Ball & Hollister, and one in favor of Butterworth; and it had been levied on under an execution in favor of the bank of Lansingburg, but not yet sold. The property on Tanner Taylor's addition, sold on a judgment in favor of Giddings & Latimer, was in part, but not all of it, sold under later executions, in May, 1861.

The time for judgment creditors to redeem under the January sales expired April 19, 1862. The bill states that Boardman, on that day, attempted to redeem under the Eggleston sale and under the Giddings & Latimer sale, and paid the proper sums to the register of deeds, but avers that the bank of Lansingburg had, at an earlier hour, redeemed under the Eggleston and Pratt & Beals sales of the store lot; that the day after the redemption Boardman told complainant and his wife that he had redeemed the property by paying, in addition to the amount of the Buhl & Ducharme judgment, about nine hundred dollars; that the Lansingburg claim might hold some of the property, and especially the store lot, to the amount of about two thousand dollars more, and that it would require an advance of about three thousand dollars to meet the demands against the property which he had redeemed; and he proposed to convey the redeemed property to Mrs. Taylor (complainant's wife), and take back a mortgage for four thousand two hundred dollars, payable in five years, with interest at ten per cent, payable annually, representing that he could sell or hypothecate this mortgage to reimburse his advances and raise money to pay off the other encumbrances; that the conveyance and mortgage were made, and by sale or hypothecation of the mortgage, and by raising money on other property of complainant, Boardman got an assignment of the Lansingburg claim, which, instead of canceling, he claims to enforce for his own benefit, and has issued execution to collect it; and that he also got from the bank a transfer of its redemption certificate of the store lot, and purchased from Ball & Hollister their right to the same lot, for eighty-six dollars.

The bill proceeds to state that Boardman claims all these purchases and redemptions as his own; that but for Boardman's promise, complainant would have raised the means from other sources, and that most of the persons who had purchased the lands were willing to give him further time to redeem; that by means of these redemptions and the mortgage, complainant's most valuable property went under Boardman's control, and complainant was unable to raise money or manage his affairs; and that Boardman never pretended to claim in his own right until after he had got the mortgage and made the redemptions.

The case made by the bill may then be stated in brief as depending on these showings: First, previous confidence; second, a conveyance of property redeemed, to Mrs. Taylor, and a mortgage back for four thousand two hundred dollars, which was to be used to furnish means to reimburse moneys already paid, and to raise further moneys to clear off the liens on the same property, to redeem the Lansingburg bank deficit, which would, as supposed, cover this property, and to pay a judgment in favor of Charles C. Rood, where the redemption had not yet run out. This covers the whole scope of the original bill, and a fair compensation was to be deducted.

From the proceedings afterwards had, and especially in view of the great conflict of testimony, it is to be noted that until the supplemental bill was filed, no claim was set up in the pleadings that any trust had arisen beyond one, for the protection of the property conveyed to Mrs. Taylor, unless the Lansingburg decree and the Rood judgment were contemplated as important on other grounds--upon which the bill is silent. There is no averment that Boardman was to redeem any of the property not sold in January, 1861, nor that he was to purchase any other, nor that he was to furnish any means beyond what could be raised by sale or hypothecation of the mortgage.

...