Chambers v. Hill

• Decision Date: 27 October 1874
• Citation: 30 Mich. 422
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Augustus H. Hill v. Theodore W. Chambers. [1]

30 Mich. 422

Augustus H. Hill v. Theodore W. Chambers. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 27, 1874

Heard October 15, 1874

Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.

May Buck & Powers, for plaintiff in error.

Severens Boudeman & Turner, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Graves, Ch. J.:

The plaintiff brought trover to recover for certain grain and other personal property which he claimed to belong to the estate of his intestate, and alleged to have been converted by the defendant, who was a son of the intestate.

Verdict and judgment having passed for the defendant, the plaintiff removed the cause to this court on writ of error and bill of exceptions. The objections stated in the bill of exceptions are numerous, and all are said to be insisted on. But we are satisfied that several of them are wholly unimportant, and require no comment. In considering the others it will not be necessary to advert specifically to each. To do so would extend our opinion unreasonably, and the material points may be disposed of without attempting it.

The nature of the action required the plaintiff to show that the identical property alleged to have been converted belonged to the estate of John A. Chambers, the plaintiff's intestate; because if it belonged to anybody else, he had no concern with it. He therefore endeavored to maintain that proposition by evidence, and the contest at the trial seems to have been chiefly, if not wholly, confined to that phase of the case.

The investigation on that subject seems to have been mainly indebted for whatever of difficulties or perplexities attended it, to certain family arrangements and dealings which had taken place. Still the question was at last substantially one of fact, to be settled by the jury upon their opinion of the evidence.

A brief reference to some of the leading circumstances will help to explain the shape and character of the controversy, and lead to a clearer understanding of the points. In the spring of 1854 the intestate removed with his wife and children from Gun Plains to Alamo. There a farm was purchased and the conveyance was made directly to the wife. The intestate and his wife immediately settled on the farm, and they continued to reside there until his death, which occurred in March, 1869. From about the time of the purchase, in the spring of 1854, it was the home of the intestate and his wife, and of such of their children as chose to make it so. When the old people went on to this farm they had two sons, who went with them: the defendant and Andrew J. Chambers, who was older than defendant. The defendant was then about fourteen, and Andrew somewhere from fifteen to eighteen.

Up to about 1861 or 1862 the intestate managed the farm and carried it on with the help of these sons. He seems to have proceeded according to his own judgment and discretion in managing and stocking it, and in handling the stock and tools.

About the time last mentioned an arrangement was made with the sons by which they were to take the farm, stock and tools, for a term of three or five years, the evidence not being distinct and clear as to the duration of the term, and at the end surrender the place and leave upon it a certain amount of stock. The terms of this arrangement are not fully and plainly shown. But it appears to have been satisfactorily carried out. During the term, and in March, 1862, Andrew married and took his wife there. Up to this time the parents and their sons appear to have lived on the place together; and, subsequently, and until 1867, they, together with Andrew's wife, resided there as a family.

The term having then expired, the sons left the farm, and the intestate proceeded to carry it on as formerly.

In 1868 Andrew died, and the old gentleman, finding his health failing, desired the defendant to return and stay with him and take charge. He also invited Andrew's widow to make her home there. The defendant at once returned, as requested, and immediately took control of the farm and stuff on it. Andrew's widow also went there to live about the same time.

The health of the old gentleman continued to fail; and in about a year, that is in March, 1869, he died.

This summary will serve to show that there was some room for raising a controversy about the right to the personalty on the farm, and will indicate that whatever uncertainty should be thought to exist on the subject, could only be cleared up by such explanations as the surviving members of the family would be able to give.

As before stated, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show that his intestate owned the specific property claimed to have been converted by the son. In seeking to do this, he first called Mr. Ives as a witness, and proved by him that he knew the intestate at Gun Plains, in 1848 or 1849, and that he then had a span of horses together with a wagon and harness. He then inquired of the witness what that property altogether was worth, and the defendant's counsel objected that it was irrelevant and immaterial. The counsel for the plaintiff then explained and stated that he proposed to show that the property mentioned was used by the intestate to buy a farm in his own name; that afterwards he sold that farm, and with the proceeds purchased the farm in Alamo, and caused the deed to be taken in his wife's name; and did so, with her knowledge and assent, to avoid the payment of his debts; and the proposed proof was claimed to be admissible as going to show that the title to the personal property in suit was in John A. Chambers, the intestate, at the time of his death, and not in the wife. The court sustained the objection.

It does not appear by the record that the matter offered was pertinent or material. Nearly twenty years had run after the conveyance to the wife, and there was no pretense that anybody had ever complained or raised any question about it. More over, it does not appear at all that the plaintiff was prosecuting in the interest of creditors, or that there were any at the time of the death of the intestate, or had been for years preceding his death; and, further still, it will be noticed that none of the facts embraced in the offer, or any that had in any wise appeared, in any manner connected the specific chattels sued for with the ownership of the farm. In no view which occurs to the court could the facts, as and when proposed, have warranted any inference that the identical chattels sued for belonged to John A. Chambers at his death.

Passing this question, we come to another, relating to the ownership of the farm. The plaintiff claims that although the land was deeded to the wife in 1854, her husband, the intestate, as the law was then, acquired certain interests or rights in it in his character of husband, which were not subject to legislative invasion, and could not be taken away by statute; and that these rights or interests having vested in him in 1854, and he not having done anything to divest them, they continued after the legislation of 1855, and until his death. That these rights or interests were such as to give him, as against his wife, the power to manage the land and the unqualified beneficial use of it. And on the strength of this position, the plaintiff contends that the legal ownership of the stock and products of the farm accrued to his intestate.

Without stopping to examine the justness of the inference suggested or the pertinency of the conclusion sought to be inferred to the proposition required to be maintained; without pausing to inquire whether if it were admitted that the...