Digby v. Thorson, 66.
Decision Date | 05 January 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 66.,66. |
Citation | 319 Mich. 524,30 N.W.2d 266 |
Parties | DIGBY et al. v. THORSON et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Alger County; Herbert W. Runnels, judge.
Suit by Lyle Digby and another against Julius Thorson and another to compel the named defendant to convey to the plaintiffs certain property fronting on a lake, on the ground that the named defendant held the property under a constructive trust, wherein the named defendant filed a cross-bill. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint and granting the named defendant incidental relief on the cross-bill, the plaintiffs appeal.
Decree reversed and rendered and case remanded.
Before the Entire Bench.
Glenn W. Jackson, of Gladstone, for plaintiffs and appellants.
George S. Baldwin, of Munising, for defendant and appellee Thorson.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, filed the bill of complaint in this case to compel the defendant Julius Thorson to convey to them certain property fronting on Lake Au Train in Alger county, claiming that Thorson held the same as a trustee under a constructive trust for their use and benefit. The Peoples State Bank of Munising was joined as defendant for the reason that it holds a mortgage on the property. However, the rights of the bank as mortgagee are not an issue in the case. From a decree dismissing their bill of complaint and granting defendant Thorson certain incidental relief on a cross bill, the plaintiffs appeal. We review the record de novo.
For several years prior to April 10, 1945, one Alan B. McGregor, a resident of Detroit, was the owner of lots 2 and 3 section 7 town 46 north range 20 west, excepting the south 500 feet of lot 3, on Lake Au Train in Alger county. On a part of the property were several buildings-a club-house, a ‘studio,’ several lodges and cottages and other buildings, known as the Bar-M Camp. In November, 1943, McGregor in writing appointed plaintiffs as managers of the property for a 5-year term unless terminated on 30 days' notice in the event of a sale of the property. The writing provided:
‘If and when any portion of this property is to be sold, the Digbys (plaintiffs) will have the right to buy in preference to any other parties.'
Under this agreement the plaintiffs continued in possession, using the clubhouse for resort purposes, renting rooms and boats to tourists, fishermen and hunters. Plaintiffs received $25 per month from McGregor for caretaker services. Lyle Digby made improvements-built steps and approach to the studio, cleared out old stumps and trees, built steps and a dock down at the water, cleared lake bottom for swimming, built shelves, repaired eaves troughs and screen windows, painted doors and windows, removed brush, removed outhouses and built new ones, salvaged old lumber, tore down an old shed and repaired and improved the main house, leveled the tank house, renewed ten doors at the main lodge, repaired deep well pumps, insulated doors and windows, did some electrical work, kept the road in shape, built a building over the deep well pump, built a cesspool, built a pump house, and otherwise improved the property with the view of ultimately becoming the owner.
Defendant Thorson lived near Munising and was in the real estate business. He had known plaintiffs for about 20 years, had something to do with their getting the job from McGregor as caretakers. Mrs. Digby testified that after they had started living on the Bar-M property Mr. Thorson came to their place two or three times a week on friendly visits; that in the winter of 1945 he talked to them of purchasing the Bar-M, and that they (plaintiffs) should have where the buildings were and a certain amount of frontage and he was to give them all the time they wanted to pay for it. He asked her to contact McGregor about purchasing the entire property. She testified that she called Mr. McGregor long distance, that he came up to the Bar-M, that Mr. Thorson came also about the first part of April or latter part of March, 1945, and that Mr. McGregor said he would have to get the papers from his office before he could give them a price. Three or four days before April 10th Mr. McGregor had his reports back from Detroit and fixed the price at $12,700, including everything. She testified it was then talked that plaintiffs were to get the Bar-M land, buildings and furniture, that no price was fixed at that time as to how much they were to pay, that later they met at Attorney Nebel's office in Munising, with Mr. Thorson, Mr. McGregor and some others. She testified:
‘In Nebel's office, ‘Well it was talked that I was to get the buildings and furnishings and boats, everything that was out there, without about 200 feet on each side and all cottages, at a price of about $7,000. At that time Mr. Nebel wanted to draw my papers up. He mentioned it. ‘Why not draw your papers now.’ I said ‘Yes, we knew each other so many years.'
‘
At the time (April 10, 1945) a deed was executed whereby McGregor deeded the entire property to Thorson and gave him a bill of sale of the personal property, for $12,700. Mrs. Digby testified that after leaving the office they went back to the Bar-M and while she was preparing a meal Mr. McGregor, Mr. Thorson and Mr. Digby and others talked about the property at which time Mr. McGregor said he wanted Mr. Digby to have the Bar-M, Mr. Thorson said $7,000 would be the price, they talked about the lake frontage which was to be 200 feet on both sides of the cabins. She testified:
‘After this I had some talk with Mr. Thorson, probably about in May. ‘Will, I asked him if we should not draw up some papers, some agreement, so we should know where we were at and then he told me he could not let me have it then for $7,000, but wanted $8,000.'
Plaintiffs' exhibit 4 was received in evidence, as follows:
‘June 6-1945.
‘Received from June Digby $800 Eight Hundred Dollars to apply on option of Bar M buildings and land.
‘Julius Thorson.'
Mrs. Digby testified to several later conversations with Mr. Thorson regarding making out the papers for the property. Exhibit 5 was received in evidence, as follows:
‘August 8, 1945.
‘I hereby agree to sell Camp Bar M-property with all Bldg- thereon and personal property as agreed here before for the consideration of $8,437.
‘Julius Thorson.'
Concerning the above exhibit, Mrs. Digby testified as follows:
‘Mr. Gillan handed this paper to me in John Tervo's. Mr. Gillan and Mr. Thorson were talking. I didn't hear very much of the conversation between them. I didn't pay much attention, but then later on Mr. Gillan handed me this paper. Several times before this I came in town looking for Mr. Thorson to get the papers. I asked him if we should not make out the papers. This was both before and after this paper, exhibit 5. He said first he was waiting until the deed came back and then he could not get a surveyor. It would be hard to say how many times I talked with him, possibly sevem or eight times. I wrote him a letter. I asked him for a certain date and he did not appear. I asked him to meet me at a certain time and he was not there.
* * *
‘I talked to Thorson in November before hunting season. Mr. Thorson came out and he had another gentleman with him. I don't know who the other gentleman was. He was a stranger to me. They had been looking over some lots. I said, ‘Well, when am I going to get my papers.’ He said,
Plaintiff Lyle Digby testified as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lim v. Combs (In re Combs)
...of another, equity will imply a trust in favor of the latter.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Digby v. Thorson , 319 Mich. 524, 30 N.W.2d 266, 272-73 (1948) ("A person who agrees with another to purchase property on behalf of the other and purchases the property for himse......
-
Miller v. Short (In re Short)
...of the legal title to retain the same, the court may charge it with a trust in favor of the equitable owner.’ " Digby v. Thorson, 319 Mich. 524, 30 N.W.2d 266, 272 (1948) (citation omitted).Michigan cases have held that a constructive trust may be imposed to prevent unjust enrichment. An ex......
-
McCreary v. Shields
...agreement or from intention, and are raised by a court of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice.' Digby v. Thorson, 319 Mich. 524, syl. 4, 30 N.W.2d 266, 'Fraud is not necessary to give rise to a constructive trust, but if circumstances are such as to render i......
-
Butler v. Attwood
...necessary to prevent a failure of justice." 352 Mich. at 658, 91 N.W.2d at 14. Such doctrine was reiterated in Digby v. Thorson, 319 Mich. 524, 539, 30 N.W.2d 266, 272 (1948). We are at once aware that after Attwood and the Finzels made their contract on March 13, 1964, and before final con......