Chandler v. Graham

• Decision Date: 13 March 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 814,123 Mich. 327
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CHANDLER v. GRAHAM et al.

82 N.W. 814

123 Mich. 327

CHANDLER v. GRAHAM et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 13, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Hillsdale county; in Chancery; Guy M Chester, Judge.

Suit to try title to land, and set aside an order in a foreclosure suit by Lud S. Chandler against Hannah D. Graham, impleaded with Russell O. Haynes, administrator, etc., of the estate of Peter Havens, deceased. From a decree overruling a demurrer defendant Graham appeals. Reversed.

Grant Fellows and B. D. Chandler, for appellant.

E. J March (C. M. Weaver, of counsel), for appellee.

HOOKER, J.

On May 23, 1894, Peter Havens, being the owner of 120 acres of land mortgaged the same to secure his promissory note for $621 to the Boies State Savings Bank. On March 17, 1897, John McDougal, to whom the mortgage was assigned, commenced foreclosure proceedings in chancery; Havens alone being defendant. On November 27, 1897, Havens died, and defendant Haynes was appointed administrator of the estate, and the suit was revived against him under the rules applicable to such cases. On June 4, 1898, a decree was entered for the complainant, and on July 20th following, the premises described in the mortgage were sold by the commissioner for $1,600 to one Wilcox. After the sale was confirmed, Wilcox ascertained that defendant Graham was in possession of three-fourths of an acre of the land; claiming that Havens, who was her father, had given it to her, and that she had title by an adverse possession of upward of 20 years. Wilcox took a writ of assistance, but the petition does not state that it was served; and he afterwards conveyed the land described in his deed to the complainant, to whom all of the land was surrendered, except the three-fourths of an acre occupied by Graham. Upon a petition duly filed, the court made a decree directing the register of the court, who held the surplus, to pay to the defendant Haynes, the administrator, the sum of $480, which was done. This bill is filed against Haynes and Graham, the latter still being in possession of the small parcel of land. It alleges that this parcel is worth $500, and that, exclusive of this parcel, the land would not have sold for the price bid, and that Mrs. Graham has no valid title. It prays that it be decreed that she is not lawfully entitled to said parcel, and that complainant be put in possession, but, if it shall be found that she has a valid title, then that it be decreed that defendant Haynes pay over to complainant the surplus received by him. Defendant Graham has demurred to this bill, and the demurrer has been overruled. It is now before us on appeal.

The bill is, so far as Graham is concerned, a bill to quiet the title and obtain possession of land, and nothing else, as she is in no way concerned with any other question involved. It does not appear that she was even made a party in the foreclosure case. It is, to all intents and purposes, a substitute for an ejectment case, so far as Hannah Graham is concerned. It has been repeatedly held that such a bill would not lie, under our constitution (article 6 � 27). Thus, in Moran v. Palmer, 13 Mich. 368, it is said: 'A bill to quiet title will be entertained on behalf of the legal owner when he is not in a position to force the adverse claimant into a court of law to test its validity; but when each party claims the legal title, and a court of law is already possessed of the case, and it is not alleged that either fraud, accident, or...