Case v. Peters
| Decision Date | 26 April 1870 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Seth Case v. Samuel E. Peters |
Heard April 25, 1870 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Appeal in Chancery from Wayne Circuit.
The bill in this cause was filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, in Chancery, by Seth Case, against Samuel E Peters. It states that about the year 1844, the complainant leased of Bishop Lefevre, certain premises in the city of Detroit, situated on the corner of Bates street and Michigan avenue, for a period of ten years: That he had erected upon said premises four buildings, for the purpose of renting the same, and did rent them during said term: That he sold to the defendant, one of said buildings for the sum of three hundred dollars: That he did not sell him any share or interest in the lease or the ground covered thereby, but made a parol agreement with Peters that he would permit his building to remain where it was, as long as he paid one-quarter of the rent and one-quarter of the taxes upon said lease-hold premises: That, accordingly, said building of Peters, remained on the land, and he paid to complainant one-quarter part of the rent and taxes of the whole lease-hold premises: That at the expiration of said ten years' lease, he obtained from said lessor a new lease of said premises, dated March 18, 1854, for thirty years which lease was duly executed and recorded: That he rented his dwellings, as heretofore, paying the groundrent to the lessor, and that Peters continued to pay him one-quarter of the ground rent and taxes.
The complainant further states that in the spring of the year 1857, he removed to the country and left his business in charge of the defendant, instructing him to collect the rents of the three buildings and pay the ground rent and taxes: That Peters so negligently managed his trust that a few months thereafter, at the close of the year 1857, he ascertained to his surprise, that the lessor had entered upon the premises for non-payment of rent, and was in possession of the whole premises and the four buildings thereon,--three of which belonged to complainant and one to Peters: That he came to town and set to work to regain possession of his property: That the lessor consented to give him a new lease if he would only pay up the rent in arrears and some repairs he had expended on the buildings, amounting in all to the sum of three hundred and eighty-eight dollars.
The bill further states, that at the time the lessor entered upon said premises, for non-payment of rent, there was, upon said three buildings owned by complainant, a chattel mortgage, made by him to David Cooper, on which was due and unpaid about six hundred and sixty-five dollars, which he had no means of paying; but he ascertained that he could borrow of said Cooper, the additional sum due to the lessor, if he could secure to said Cooper both the new sum and the old debt due on the chattel mortgage. Accordingly, he proposed to the defendant, that he should aid him in securing to said Cooper the above mentioned two sums, amounting to about ten hundred and fifty dollars, to which proposition Peters assented; and an arrangement was made by which the lessor should make the new lease, he was ready to make, to Peters instead of to complainant, and that thereupon Peters should mortgage the lease-hold interest to Cooper, and should also assign to Cooper, as collateral to said mortgage debt, a certain contract of sale of a lot of land, made to said Peters by John Winder, Esq., on which was still due to said Winder several hundred dollars, on which said lot Peters had erected a valuable brick house. Peters was to hold said lease-hold property in his own name, and collect all rents and profits, and apply the surplus, over and above ground rents, taxes and repairs, to the payment of said chattel mortgage to said Cooper, and after the same was paid in full, should assign said lease to complainant.
The bill further charges that this arrangement was carried out that he put Peters in possession of the premises, and gave him authority in writing to collect the rents. And that in accordance with such arrangement Peters has collected all the rents of said three buildings from said May, 1858, to the present time, more than enough as complainant was informed to pay said ground rent, taxes and repairs, and the said chattel mortgage and the interest thereon, leaving due to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panhandle Lumber Co. v. Rancour
... ... reformation of a contract or specific performance or pursuing ... any other civil remedy is not required to establish his case ... "beyond a reasonable doubt," and that the rule ... requiring a case to be established "beyond a reasonable ... doubt" applies in this state ... Elliott, 4 Md. (Ch.) 273; Miller v ... Stuart, 107 Md. 23, 68 A. 273; German-Am. Ins. Co ... v. Davis, 131 Mass. 316; Case v. Peters, 20 ... Mich. 298; Mosby v. Wall, 23 Miss. 81, 55 Am. Dec ... 71; Downing v. McHugh, 3 Mo.App. 594; Rowley v ... Flannelly, 30 N.J. Eq. 614; ... ...
-
Levy v. Dossin's Food Products
...high degree of care and caution should be exercised in reforming written instruments affecting title to land. The court said in Case v. Peters, 20 Mich. 298, 303: "It would, we think, be exceedingly dangerous, and tend to weaken confidence in titles generally, if the effect of deeds of conv......
-
Holda v. Glick
...instrument on the ground of mistake. The proof of mistake must be clear and convincing. 16 Cyc. 70; Vary v. Shea, 36 Mich. 388;Case v. Peters, 20 Mich. 298. “Courts of equity do not grant the high remedy of reformation upon a probability, nor even upon a mere preponderance of evidence, but ......
-
Vary v. Shea
... ... Pr. N. S., 666; 2 Robt. 505; Broadwell v ... Broadwell, 6 Ill. 599 ... To the ... same effect.--Tripp v. Hasceig, 20 Mich. 263; Case v ... Peters, 20 Mich. 298 ... The ... mistake of one party not enough, must have been ... mutual.--Mills v. Lewis, 55 Barb. 179; 37 ... ...