Crawford v. Hoeft

• Decision Date: 29 September 1885
• Citation: 24 N.W. 645,58 Mich. 1
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. HOEFT and others.

24 N.W. 645

58 Mich. 1

CRAWFORD v. HOEFT and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 29, 1885

Appeal from Presque Isle.

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

CHAMPLIN, J.

This is a suit to cancel a conveyance of lands in the county of Presque Isle, purporting to have been made by the complainant to her son, Leonard C. Crawford, on the tenth day of August 1878, and also to set aside a deed made by Crawford to defendant Hoeft, and also a mortgage executed by Crawford to Edwin Hadley, and by him assigned to the defendants Miller and Rowley, as incumbrances upon the property. Leonard C Crawford died in 1881, leaving no children. Defendant Francis Crawford is the father of Leonard; defendant Turnbull, the administrator of his estate; and Anna M. Crawford is his widow.

The bill of complaint was filed on the fifteenth day of August 1882, and alleges that on and prior to August 10, 1878, the complainant, Cynthia W. Crawford, owned the property in suit consisting of several thousand acres of land in Presque Isle county, upon which was a village called Crawford's Quarry, a saw-mill, store, and a valuable stone quarry; that in September, 1873, for the purpose of starting business at Crawford's Quarry, she leased a part of these lands to her son, Leonard C. Crawford, he agreeing to pay her $500 a year for her support, and pay the taxes on her property in that county; that he did business there under this lease until some time prior to August 10, 1878, when, the lease having expired, he requested an indefinite continuation of such lease, and proposed that she deed him, during his life, the quarry lands, covering the lake front and mill property, to be used by him during his life, and on his death to revert to her, as a means of providing for him against any reverses that might happen to her; that she consented, but expressly reserved section 12, the town plat, and the old homestead, and, with the understanding that this deed was not to be recorded, but simply should be held by him as the evidence of his life-lease in said land, with no right of sale, and on the further understanding that Leonard should comply with all the terms of the old lease, and especially as to the payment of the taxes and of $500 annually to herself, said deed being intended to simply extend said lease during the life of said Leonard, and subject to the same conditions; that she signed what purported to be a deed of the quarry lands, with the reservations and agreement mentioned, but never acknowledged it, as it was not intended to be recorded; that she resided at the "Quarry" during the summers, and at Detroit during the winters, and never knew or heard that her son Leonard claimed to have a deed of said lands other than the one intended as a life-lease until the winter of 1880, when she learned that her son Leonard had placed a deed upon record of all her lands; that she never signed or acknowledged such deed, but that it was signed and forged by her said son, without her knowledge or consent, and that, to conceal its existence as long as possible, it was kept from the record for nearly six months, and when it was recorded it was so indexed as to still further conceal its existence; that she charged her son Leonard with having a false and fraudulent deed from her on record of all her lands, and repeatedly tried to get him to restore said premises to her, but, while he always promised to do so, continually delayed doing anything for her in that respect, for the purpose of gaining time to sell or incumber the whole of said property, and put it, as he supposed, beyond her reach, and for this purpose he did, without her knowledge or consent, on the fifteenth of October, 1880, execute a deed to Herman Hoeft for $4,000 of an undivided one-half interest in section 24, where the town site, the mill, and dock property are located, and on the same day executed to Edwin Hadley a mortgage for $8,000, covering the balance of her said lands, which mortgage was, on October 27, 1880, assigned to defendants Miller and Rowley for $7,500; that both the Hoeft deed and Hadley mortgage were taken with a knowledge of this claim; that in October, 1880, she went with counsel to the "Quarry" to compel her son to restore these lands, and, after much effort, finally induced him to do so on the sixteenth of October, 1880, by deed, which was left with William A. Moore, of Detroit, in escrow, to be delivered to her on the death of her son, and on her paying $1,000 to his widow, but if she died first, the same was to be returned to her son and canceled; that this deed was taken without knowledge of the Hoeft deed and Hadley mortgage, and was supposed to embrace all the land, with the title in the same condition as on the tenth day of August, 1878, but when she learned that it did not so convey all these lands, and was to be received subject to these conditions, and also said conveyances, she repudiated it as a fraud on her rights in the premises, and claimed all her lands free and clear of any incumbrances placed thereon by him. The prayer is for a decree setting aside this deed as a forgery, and also the Hoeft deed and Hadley mortgage, and for an accounting for the use and occupation of the premises and the timber cut therefrom.

Defendants Francis Crawford, the heir at law, Anna M. Crawford, the widow, who took a life-estate, and Edwin Hadley made no answer. Defendants Hoeft, Turnbull, administrator, and Miller and Rowley filed separate answers.

Hoeft's answer. Admits the deed and record, and denies the forgery; claims she was in Presque Isle county since the date of the deed, and allowed her son, down to his death in October, 1881, to have general control of the place, and to sell and mortgage it as his own, and never objected; denies any knowledge of the fraud, and charges he purchased in good faith, for value, and without notice of any claim made to the same; relied on this deed and its record, and, though it was well known that he was going to purchase this property long before he did, she never informed him of any claim to the property, nor objected to his buying it, notwithstanding the fact that she was then at the "Quarry," and knew of his afterwards making large improvements on the property; demurs on the ground that the bill is defective for want of necessary parties; that she is estopped by her own laches, by having put this property into the hands of her son, and allowing him to dispose of it as his own; and also in thus failing to notify him of her claim, though she knew of his purchase and being in possession of the property.

Turnbull's answer. Makes the same substantial defense as the Hoeft answer, but alleges the additional ground of demurrer that, as she knew of the fraud in 1880, it is now too late to complain after her son's death, both as against his creditors as well as the bona fide purchasers of this property.

Miller and Rowley's answer. Says that they know nothing of the matters alleged, except as to the mortgage; admit its existence and record, but deny that Hadley had any knowledge of the fraud, or that he was their agent in securing this loan; and aver that, relying upon his representations, they purchased this mortgage in good faith, and paid him therefor $7,500, without any notice or knowledge of the claim against this deed, and allege that she is estopped by laches, and by a deed of release executed to them January 26, 1883, whereby she released to them all manner of right to question this mortgage, and to further prosecute her suit against them.

General replications to the answers were filed, and the case is before us upon pleadings and proofs. It was first argued before us at the October term of 1884, and was held under advisement until the ninth of April, 1885, when an opinion was filed by the chief justice affirming the decree of the court below dismissing the bill of complaint. 23 N.W. 27. It was there stated that the case contained a great deal of conflicting evidence which had given us no little trouble; but, in considering the evidence, the majority of the court did not feel fully assured that the forgery alleged in the bill had been established, but we felt quite well satisfied, as stated by the chief justice, "that the deed in question was made by complainant, who weakly suffered herself to be misled and defrauded by her worthless son." Mr. Justice CAMPBELL did not agree with us in the conclusion which we had reached, and expressed the opinion that the deed complained of was not a genuine instrument. A rehearing was granted, and the case was at our last term ably and exhaustively argued by counsel for both parties. We have again read the printed record with care, and, in addition, have critically examined the original depositions and exhibits returned to this court, and, as we have come to a different conclusion from what we before announced, I shall proceed to state the reasons therefor.

The main ground upon which relief is asked is the forgery alleged to have been committed by Leonard C. Crawford of the deed bearing date August 10, 1878. In weighing the testimony bearing upon this point, it is proper to consider the relation which these parties bore to each other, their age mental condition, and the surrounding circumstances. The complainant is the mother of Leonard C. Crawford, and he is said by some of the witnesses to have been her favorite son. She was a lady over 70 years of age at the time the forgery is alleged to have been committed, and, judging from the testimony, her mind and memory must have been weakened by age, for it bears inherent evidence of intellectual decay, and of the presence of infirmities incident to advanced years. She frequently contradicts herself, and falls into errors without apparent...