Crawford v. Hoeft

• Decision Date: 09 April 1885
• Citation: 58 Mich. 1,23 N.W. 27
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. HOEFT and others.

23 N.W. 27

58 Mich. 1

CRAWFORD v. HOEFT and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 9, 1885

Appeal from Presque Isle.

J.D. Turnbull, Chas. R. Miller, and A.L. Millard, for defendants.

COOLEY, C.J.

This case came before us with a voluminous record, containing a great deal of conflicting evidence, and has given us no little trouble. The purpose of the bill was to obtain an adjudication that a deed purporting to be made by complainant to her son was a forgery by the son, and that subsequent conveyances and mortgages by the son were therefore void. The argument of the case left me somewhat impressed with complainant's view of the facts, but on a careful reading of the testimony afterwards I found this impression substantially effaced. And the more I have reflected upon the case since, the more convinced I have become that the deed in question was made by complainant, who weakly suffered herself to be misled and defrauded by her worthless son. This conclusion would dispose of the case and entitle the defendants to protection. I therefore think the decree should be affirmed. But in affirming it I should deem it proper to provide that if, pending this suit, any of the defendants holding encumbrances from which the complainant would be entitled to redeem have taken proceedings in foreclosure, such proceedings should be held subject to redemption still, and on settlement of the decree time should be fixed for that purpose, if not agreed upon.

CHAMPLIN and SHERWOOD, JJ., concurred.

CAMPBELL, J.

Although the case is one which is not at all satisfactory in many respects, my opinion is that the deed complained of was not a genuine instrument.