Curtiss v. Sheldon

• Decision Date: 05 January 1882
• Citation: 47 Mich. 262,11 N.W. 151
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CURTISS and another v. SHELDON and another.

11 N.W. 151

47 Mich. 262

CURTISS and another v. SHELDON and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 5, 1882

Where on a bill to redeem, redemption is allowed and the case referred for an accounting with leave to take further testimony, the decree may be affirmed without a full examination of the transactions involved, until a later stage of the case, if it is clearly apparent from the record that complainant was entitled to the particular relief asked for.

The form of a contract cannot prevent an examination of the whole transaction on a bill in equity, where it was entered into in continuation of an earlier agreement.

A quitclaim deed cannot be considered as a final surrender of all the grantor's interest, where the intention was in fact to secure the grantee for a debt due him from the grantor, and enable him to dispose of the property the more readily for the satisfaction of the debt.

Appeal from Jackson.

Bill to redeem. The bill claims that in 1863 Martin Mosher bargained with James Sheldon for the purchase of part of the premises and his son David Mosher bargained with other persons for the remainder; that in 1865 Mosher and Sheldon had a settlement showing that $900 remained unpaid on the first lot; that in 1866 David Mosher and Sheldon died intestate, Mosher's interest descending to his father, and Sheldon's to his widow and children; that in 1867 defendant James W. Sheldon was made administrator of his father's estate and soon after bought in the interest still remaining in the vendor of the second lot, and having also purchased the interest of his co-heirs became subrogated to the rights and liabilities of the vendors in both contracts; that in 1867, 1868 and 1870 he obtained new contracts from the Moshers; that he lent money to Mosher in 1870 and 1871 to be expended in putting up and furnishing a hotel building on the premises; that he had a chattel mortgage on the furniture in 1870 and that in 1872 he obtained from them a bill of sale of the furniture and a quitclaim deed of the premises of which he took exclusive possession, converting to his own use the rents, refusing to account to or settle with Mosher and claiming that the quitclaim was an absolute sale. Complainant Curtis is an assignee of Mosher's interest, and he and Mrs. Mosher claim that the quitclaim deed was given to Sheldon merely as security, and seek to redeem it. The court below allowed redemption and referred the case...