Crawford v. Hoeft

• Decision Date: 19 November 1885
• Citation: 25 N.W. 567,58 Mich. 1
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. HOEFT and others.

25 N.W. 567

58 Mich. 1

CRAWFORD v. HOEFT and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 19, 1885

Appeal from Presque Isle.

J.D Turnbull and Charles R. Miller, for defendants.

CHAMPLIN, J.

Motion was made in this case on behalf of defendants Herman Hoeft and James D. Turnbull, administrator, to vacate and set aside the decree entered therein, or for leave to file a bill for that purpose, on the ground of fraud practiced upon the court by the complainant's solicitor in obtaining the decree. The motion is based upon a portion of the opinion of the court, wherein mention is made of the appearance of the deed from Cynthia W. Crawford to Leonard Crawford, alleged to have been forged, as justifying, in connection with the other testimony in the case, the conclusion to which the court arrived that the deed was forged. Affidavits have been filed in support of the motion, in which the affiants state that at the time they saw the deed, and before it was introduced in evidence, such deed consisted of a whole sheet, not severed at the center fold, and hence a half sheet of one deed could not have been substituted for another, as intimated in the opinion of the court.

No claim is made that the deed returned and remaining on file in this court is not the identical deed which was introduced in evidence, or that any change or alteration has been made therein, except that it has become worn, and its parts pasted together to preserve them. It appears that the instrument has been taken to Denver and exhibited to the witnesses, whose depositions were there taken, and also to Chicago, for the purpose of exhibiting the same to Mrs. Williams, another witness; and it is quite possible that this may account in a measure for its pocket-worn appearance; but it does not account for the fact which still remains, that one half of the sheet is wider than the other, nor that the marginal lines, which should be continuous and of the same width apart in a whole sheet, are not so in these two half-sheets when placed together. It may be possible that these discrepancies might occur in cutting and ruling the paper, but it is not very likely that both should occur in the same sheet. Be this as it may, the affidavits fail entirely to show, and there is no ground for asserting, that the complainant's solicitor intentionally or unintentionally practiced or attempted to practice a fraud upon the court with reference to the appearance or...