Crane v. Reeder

• Decision Date: 07 July 1870
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Walter Crane v. Edwin Reeder and Eliza Reeder

21 Mich. 24

Walter Crane v. Edwin Reeder and Eliza Reeder

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 7, 1870

Heard April 26, 1870; April 27, 1870; April 28, 1870; April 29 1870. [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Error to Wayne circuit.

This was an action of ejectment brought by Walter Crane in the circuit court for the county of Wayne against Edwin Reeder and Eliza Reeder, devisees under the will of Edwin Reeder, deceased, who devised to them, in common with others, a large tract of land, which includes the locus in quo. The facts, as developed on the trial, are substantially as follows:

In 1799, John Harvey was a resident of Detroit. He had come from England several years previously, and had resided in Detroit for several years, pursuing the occupation of a baker. About the year 1816 he removed from Detroit, and in 1819 or 1820 went to Jeffersonville, Indiana, and died there in the year 1825. He had a wife in Detroit, whom he had married in this country, but no children. His wife went to Jeffersonville with him, and died there in 1823. After the death of his wife he sent to England for a daughter, Maria Yorke Harvey, whom he had left there, as he claimed, upon his emigration to this country. She came out, and went to Jeffersonville to reside with him. She was considered his only heir.

In 1801, Harvey acquired the tract, of which the locus in quo is a portion, by deed from Todd & McGill. This deed is dated October 31, 1801, and is of record in Wayne county. This tract was confirmed to Harvey by the United States, by patent dated April 20, 1811, and was then, and has been since, known as private claim No. 39. On April 27, 1823, Harvey conveyed the tract to Maria Yorke Harvey, by deed executed in the state of Indiana, and acknowledged there before a justice of the peace. This deed had no attesting witnesses. It was recorded in Wayne county in 1826. In 1826, Maria Yorke Harvey intermarried with Edwin Reeder, devisor of defendants in error. She died in 1827, having had no children. Soon after her death, Reeder visited Detroit, ostensibly for the purpose of looking after the tract in question. In 1831 he took possession of the tract, and resided upon it down to the time of his death, in 1869.

The plaintiff in error relied upon a grant from the state of Michigan, made in 1868. He claimed that the tract in controversy escheated to the government, either in 1825, on the death of John Harvey, or in 1827, on the death of Maria Yorke (Harvey) Reeder; that, upon the death of John Harvey, he left no heirs except Maria Yorke Harvey; that she was an alien, and could not, under the law, as it existed in 1825, inherit the property. But he also claimed that the deed from John Harvey was invalid for want of witnesses, as required by the law of Michigan in force at the date of the execution of the deed, regulating the execution of conveyances. If the deed was invalid, he claimed that an escheat arose upon the death of John Harvey. But, if the deed was valid, or even if she could inherit, Maria Yorke (Harvey) Reeder was seized of the premises upon her death in 1827, and plaintiff claimed that an escheat then arose because she left no heirs. He claimed, also, that the escheat was either to the United States or the territory of Michigan, and whether to the one or the other, the state of Michigan succeeded to the title by escheat and could grant the same.

No claim of title was relied on by defendants in error, except that which arose from Edwin Reeder's long possession of the property.

Two questions are presented for review in this court upon the admissibility of evidence:

1. That the said circuit judge erred in admitting in evidence the deed from John Harvey to Maria Yorke Harvey, dated April 27, 1823, offered in evidence on behalf of the defendants; and,

2. In permitting Eliza Reeder to testify on behalf of said defendants. That in the year 1853, while she was living with Edwin Reeder, in his house, said Edwin Reeder had told said Eliza Reeder that his wife, Maria Yorke Reeder, had said to him that the said Maria had two sisters in England who were married and lived in Birmingham.

The plaintiff requested the court to instruct the jury:

First. The deed of the premises in question from John Harvey to Maria Yorke Harvey, executed in 1823, was void for want of witnesses. And if the court so instructed the jury, the plaintiff requested the further instruction:

Second. That the deed being void, it must be assumed upon the evidence that John Harvey died seized of the premises; and if the jury believe that John Harvey, so dying seized, left no heirs surviving him except aliens, the premises escheated on his death. The plaintiff further requested that if the court should refuse to give the instruction above marked "first," the following instructions should be given:

Third. That, assuming the validity of the deed from John Harvey to Maria Yorke Harvey, the evidence tends to show that Maria Yorke Harvey died seized of the premises in the summer of 1827, and, so dying seized, that she left no heirs on her death. If she did die so seized, the question of fact for the consideration of the jury will be whether she left any heirs surviving her.

Fourth. If she left such heirs the land descended to them; if not, it escheated to the government. Edwin Reeder, merely as the husband of Maria Yorke Harvey, would have no title to the premises on her decease.

Fifth. The escheat, if an escheat arose either on the death of John Harvey or Maria Yorke Harvey, was either to the United States or to the territory of Michigan, and whether to the one or to the other, the state of Michigan, on the organization of the state government, succeeded to the title by escheat.

Sixth. That the title by escheat became vested without office found or any other proceeding of that nature.

Seventh. That the deed from the state of Michigan to the plaintiff was good and valid to convey the title of the state to him, and he may assert that title in this form of action.

Eighth. Conceding all that is admitted or proved in respect to possession by Edwin Reeder or those claiming under him, plaintiff's title is not barred by any statute of limitations.

All of which the court refused to give, except the third and fourth, and the plaintiff excepted.

The defendants requested the court to instruct the jury:

First. That the plaintiff cannot recover without showing a good legal title in himself, and that any weakness or imperfection in the title of the defendant is not enough.

Second. That the patent of the United States granting the premises in question to John Harvey, an Englishman, and to his heirs and assigns forever, created an estate in fee, inheritable by his heirs, even though they were aliens.

Third. That the common law doctrine that aliens cannot hold, transmit by descent, or inherit land, did not prevail in the territory at the time that Maria Yorke Reeder claimed to hold the property in question.

Fourth. That the deed made on the 27th of April, 1823, by John Harvey to his daughter Maria, though without two witnesses, was valid and effectual to vest in her and her heirs the title to the premises in question.

Fifth. That upon the death of said Maria said title descended to her heirs, if she had any; and if she had any sisters, or other collateral relatives by blood, then living in England, they were such heirs.

Sixth. That since the passage of the statute of March 31, 1827, neither the state nor any one else can dispute or question a title to land by descent, by reason of the alienage of the heirs; and if at her death said Maria left heirs in England, no escheat can be maintained in this case.

Seventh. There was no escheat, unless said Maria died without lawful heirs; and if the plaintiff claims that such was the fact, he must establish it by sufficient proof. Failure of heirs is not to be presumed; on the contrary, the legal presumption is that she left heirs, and that presumption must prevail unless the plaintiff can overthrow it by satisfactory proof to the jury.

Eighth. That if there was any escheat in this case it was to the United States, the territorial government not being sovereign, but only a governmental or municipal agency of the United States.

Ninth. That the title held by Harvey was an estate of inheritance in fee simple, absolute; and if an escheat occurred, the United States took the premises on the same title, and held said land as proprietors, and not for the purposes of political or governmental use or jurisdiction.

Tenth. That such proprietary title did not pass to this state, and this state can neither claim nor grant the same.

Eleventh. That in case of escheat, the fact of escheat must be ascertained by the appropriate proceedings on the part of the state before it or its grantee can maintain ejectment for the lands supposed to be escheated.

Twelfth. That the act of 1846, under which the trustees have assumed to make the deed to plaintiff, extends only to escheats to the state since its organization.

Thirteenth. That the act of 1846 does not authorize such trustees to sell and convey any lands as escheated, of...