Crawford v. Hoeft

• Citation: 58 Mich. 1,26 N.W. 870
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 17 February 1886
• Parties: CRAWFORD and others v. HOEFT.

26 N.W. 870

58 Mich. 1

CRAWFORD and others v. HOEFT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 17, 1886

Motion for writ of restitution.

CHAMPLIN J.

Motion is made for a writ of restitution, to be directed to the defendants, Herman Hoeft, Francis Crawford, Anna M. Crawford and James D. Turnbull, administrator, etc., commanding them to deliver up the possession of the premises described in the bill of complaint, and particularly the premises known as fractional section No. 24, in township 35 N., range 5 E., in Presque Isle county, Michigan. The motion is based upon the records and files in the cause, and the affidavit of George W. Bates. It appears that the parties above named are in possession, and since the entry of the final decree in this court in said cause possession has been demanded from the defendants in behalf of complainant, and that defendants refuse to deliver up possession until compelled to do so by the order of this court. On the hearing of this motion it was urged in behalf of the defendant Hoeft that he had a right to hold possession until put out by an action of ejectment, in which action he could have the value of the improvements claimed to have been made by him valued by a jury, and he be compensated therefor and, further, that this court has not jurisdiction over the case, as under the statute the files and record have been transmitted to the court below, and the application, if proper at all, should be made in that court, where the record now is. We have no doubt of our authority to issue all writs necessary or proper to enforce our decree; but we think the court below, to which the record has been returned, has the power and authority to issue the writ of restitution to put defendants out and put complainant in the possession of the premises described in the decree. The deed under which the defendants claim rights, and under which they obtained possession, was declared by the decree of this court to be a forgery, and void. The defendants cannot claim any rights as having been conferred by such deed, and the complainant is not obliged to resort to the action of ejectment to obtain possession of the premises which this court decreed to be hers. The complainant is entitled, under the decree of this court, to the immediate possession of the land described in the decree, and to a writ of restitution from the court below, on an application properly made to that court. We therefore deny...