Crawford v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 05 April 1876 |
| Citation | 33 Mich. 354 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Andrew Crawford v. William Edwards and others. [1] |
Submitted on Briefs January 7, 1876 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Appeal in Chancery from Berrien Circuit.
The bill sets forth that one John T. Edwards on April 23, 1866 conveyed to one Orrin Goodrich a piece of land in Berrien county, Michigan, described as follows: Commencing twenty rods south of the northwest corner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section thirty, in town four south, of range eighteen west, thence south twenty rods, thence east eighty rods, thence north twenty rods and thence west eighty rods to the place of beginning, containing ten acres of land; that Goodrich mortgaged the same back to Edwards to secure the payment of sixteen hundred dollars of the purchase price, and immediately took possession of the premises; that the deed was recorded, but the mortgage was not; that on October 1, 1867, it having been ascertained that the boundaries had not been properly described, it was arranged that Goodrich should deed back and Edwards should convey in lieu thereof nine acres of said land, viz.: Commencing twenty rods and three and three eighths links south of the northwest corner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section thirty, thence south four and sixty-nine and one-third one-hundredths chains, thence east nineteen and nineteen one-hundredths chains, thence north four and sixty-nine and one third one-hundredths chains, and thence west nineteen and nineteen one-hundredths chains to place of beginning; that Goodrich accordingly did deed back and the deed was recorded, and that Edwards and wife thereupon gave a warranty deed to Goodrich, dated November 2, 1867, and intended to cover the premises last above mentioned, but by mistake the initial point was described as twenty rods and three and three-eighths links south of the northwest corner of the southwest quarter (instead of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter) of said section thirty, etc.; that Goodrich thereupon made a new note for the sixteen hundred dollars and to secure its payment made a new mortgage, dated November 2, 1867, designed to cover the same nine acres, but that by mistake this mortgage described the premises the same as in the deed last aforesaid, except that the south boundary was omitted altogether; that this mortgage was recorded; that Edwards on November 25, 1867, assigned this mortgage to one Green, who assigned to complainant; that in 1868 Orrin Goodrich died intestate, and his estate has never been administered upon; that in December, 1868, his heirs deeded to his widow, Alsina Goodrich, by a description like that in the deed of November 2, 1867, and she, by like description, deeded, January 7, 1869, to her son-in-law, Jakeway, subject to aforesaid mortgage, which he assumed and agreed to pay; that both these deeds were recorded; that on October 30, 1869, Jakeway and wife and Alsina Goodrich deeded by the same description to William Edwards subject to the mortgage, which he assumed and agreed to pay, and that this deed was recorded. The bill also avers that the possession originally taken under the first deed, of the premises intended to be conveyed, was maintained under all these conveyances and finally transferred to said William Edwards, who having bargained and sold the same, and having then discovered the mistake in the aforesaid conveyances, caused the same to be conveyed by a proper description by said John T. Edwards to one Brown for three thousand one hundred dollars on December 10, 1869, and that Brown mortgaged the same back to said William Edwards for nine hundred and sixty-five dollars; that Brown, on April 13, 1870, conveyed the same, subject to said mortgage of nine hundred and sixty-five dollars, to Sabra Adams, wife of Walter H. Adams, who is now in possession. It also charges that Brown and the Adamses had notice of the mistake in said conveyances, and of the existence of complainant's mortgage, and that said William Edwards had assumed to pay the same; and it alleges that said mortgage is past due and remains unpaid. The prayer is for an accounting of the amount due on complainant's mortgage and for a reformation of the description of the premises therein, and also in the deed from Edwards to Goodrich; and that if said Adams should be found to have purchased with notice of complainant's mortgage, the premises as rectified be sold for the satisfaction thereof; but if not, and if said mortgage of nine hundred and sixty-five dollars be still due and unpaid and belonging to said William Edwards, that it be foreclosed for complainant's benefit, and that said William Edwards be decreed to pay the balance due to complainant; and that if said nine hundred and sixty-five dollar mortgage be held by a bona fide purchaser, said William Edwards be decreed to pay the amount found due to complainant; and also for general relief.
The defenses set up, as well as the facts established by the proofs, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. On the hearing below, the bill was dismissed, and the complainant appealed.
Decree of the court reversed, and a decree rendered in favor of the complainant and against the defendant William Edwards, for the amount due upon the sixteen hundred dollar note of November 2, 1867 with costs of both courts.
Potter & Potter and George W. Shaw, for complainant.
F. Muzzy, for defendants.
Orrin Goodrich during his lifetime was liable, and after his decease his estate was subject, to the payment of the sixteen hundred dollar mortgage of November 2, 1867. There can be no question but that there was a mutual mistake made in describing the nine acres of land intended to be conveyed in the second deed from John T. Edwards to Mr. Goodrich. Goodrich, at the time this second conveyance was executed, was in the actual possession of the land under his first deed, in which it was properly described, and he remained in possession, after receiving the second deed, until the time of his death in 1868. After this his widow and heirs, and their grantees, continued in possession, claiming under the deed of November 2, until the conveyance of October 30, 1869, to William Edwards. No mistake up to this time had been discovered, or if it had, it was not known to any of the heirs or grantees of Orrin Goodrich. There can be no doubt, therefore, but that up to the time (December 10, 1869), when John T. Edwards conveyed by proper description these lands to Francis P. Brown, the parties interested might, upon discovering the mistake, have had it corrected.
Alsina Goodrich, the widow of Orrin, was interested in having this one thousand six hundred dollar note and mortgage paid. At the time she conveyed the premises to her son-in-law Jakeway, a clause was inserted in the deed by which he assumed the payment of this mortgage, and he also bound himself not to sell the land without the consent of Mrs. Goodrich, during her lifetime. Upon the 30th day of October, 1869, Jakeway, then claiming to own this property, and being in possession, conveyed the same to William Edwards, Mrs. Goodrich joining in this conveyance. The consideration expressed in this deed was twenty-five hundred dollars, and it is conceded the property was worth that amount. That deed contained this clause: "This conveyance is made subject to a certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People's Sav. Bank v. Geistert
...to pay the mortgage, may be held by a personal decree for any deficiency which may result from the sale of the premises. Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Mich. 354;Miller v. Thompson, 34 Mich. 10;Taylor v. Whitmore et al., 35 Mich. 97;Higman v. Stewart, 38 Mich. 513;Winans v. Wilkie, 41 Mich. 264, 1......
-
Winn v. The Lippincott Investment Company
... ... Allen (Mass.), 151; Company v. Mowery, 67 Iowa ... 113; Rugg v. Brainard, 67 Vt. 364; Johnson v ... Walter, 60 Iowa 315; Crawford v. Edwards, 33 ... Mich. 354; Jones on Mortgages [2 Ed.], sec. 744. (8) And this ... covenant runs with the land, operating as an incumbrance upon ... ...
-
McCurdy v. Van Os
...The language of these two cases is a misapplication of elementary principles. These statements are gratuitous dicta. In Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Mich. 354, 355, it was held that the acceptance of a deed by a grantee from a grantor, in which the grantee assumes and agrees to pay, binds the gr......
-
Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Bldg. Sec. Corp.
...is a new and supplementary proceeding and not a mere continuation of the foreclosure. Johnson v. Shepard, 35 Mich. 115, 116; Crawford v. Edwards, 33 Mich. 354;Miller v. Thompson, 34 Mich. 10;Taylor v. Whitmore, 35 Mich. 97;Higman v. Stewart, 38 Mich. 513;Winans v. Wilkie, 41 Mich. 264, 1 N.......