Brown v. Cady
| Decision Date | 14 October 1863 |
| Citation | 11 Mich. 535 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Samuel Brown v. George W. Cady |
Submitted on Briefs July 17, 1863
Case made from Lapeer Circuit.
The action was ejectment. The land in controversy was shown to have been patented by Prentice Williams; and the plaintiff then offered in evidence the record of a deed in the office of the register of deeds of Lapeer county, which purported to have been executed by Prentice Williams to John B. Cady, June 15th, 1838, and to convey said premises, but defective because witnessed by one person only.
No evidence of any kind was offered to show that the deed was executed according to the laws of Massachusetts. The date of the record was March 23d, 1838. The defendant objected to the introduction of this record in evidence, but the court admitted it, and plaintiff then gave further evidence to show that Cady's title had been acquired by himself.
The defendant also gave evidence to show title in himself derived from Williams.
The Circuit Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
New trial granted, with the costs of this court, in favor of Brown.
Heminway & Stickney, for plaintiff.
Baldwin & Draper, for defendant.
Christiancy, J. did not hear the argument.
This was an action of ejectment. The plaintiff below, in order to make out his case, introduced the record of a deed purporting to have been executed January, 15th, 1838, by Prentice Williams, the patentee, to John B. Cady, having but one witness, and having an undated acknowledgment purporting to be taken in Massachusetts before a justice of the peace. The date of the record was in March, 1838. No other certificate was appended, and no proof was offered with it.
This record was objected to as invalid for several reasons assigned, and was claimed by the plaintiff below to be within the statute of 1861 (Laws 1861, p. 16), confirmatory of certain deeds and conveyances.
This deed, if admissible at all, comes within sections one and four of the statute, relating to deeds not validly executed according to the laws of Michigan, but which are made good between the parties as deeds or executory contracts under certain circumstances.
In order to bring this deed within the saving of section one it is necessary to show that, although not valid under the laws of Michigan as a conveyance for all purposes, it was executed in Massachusetts according to the laws of that State, as well as regularly acknowledged, and therefore valid under the confirming statute. To presume this without evidence would be to disregard the express terms of the statute, which is only applicable to such deeds as are shown to fall within it. No presumptions of validity can be raised where our own laws have not been complied with.
But the record was inadmissible upon a further ground. The statute of 1861 makes a distinction between those deeds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Motorbuses
...the following, in addition to the one just above cited, may be noted: Rose v. Lewis, 10 Mich. 483;King v. Moore, 10 Mich. 538;Brown v. Cady, 11 Mich. 535 and Gray v. Howard, 12 Mich. 171. Following the practice established during the period above covered, this phase of the law was changed b......
-
King v. Carpenter
... ... Cameron 24 Wend. 92; as to the validity of the ... deed as a common law conveyance as between the parties and ... against all having notice, Brown v. McCormick 28 Mich. 215. A ... deed executed according to the laws of the state where it was ... made, can be proved by its record. Brown v. Cady ... ...
-
Van Auken v. Monroe
... ... Defendants bring error ... Judgment affirmed with costs and the cause remanded ... Richards ... & Mills and Brown, Howard & Roos for plaintiffs in ... Edward ... Bacon for defendants in error. The owner of a tax-title who ... has had prior and ... decisions. Galpin v. Abbott, 6 Mich. 17; Crane ... v. Reeder, 21 Mich. 24; Brown v. Cady, 11 Mich ... 535; Brown v. McCormick, 28 Mich. 215 ... The ... other record was not supported by any proof or any legitimate ... offer ... ...
-
Moses v. Aldrich
...was raised upon the trial, and by the practice of the court no other can be raised here: Van Kleek v. Eggleston, 7 Mich. 514; Brown v. Cady, 11 Mich. 535. question whether this record did in fact show "due diligence," is not the question here, though Mr. Justice Daniel, in 3 How. 533, did r......