Domboorajian v. Domboorajian

Decision Date22 July 1926
Docket NumberNo. 100.,100.
Citation209 N.W. 846,235 Mich. 668
PartiesDOMBOORAJIAN v. DOMBOORAJIAN et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washtenaw County, in Chancery; George W. Sample, Judge.

Suit by Benjamin Domboorajian against Haig Domboorajian and another. From the decree, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before Entire Bench.

Arthur Brown, of Ann Arbor, for appellants.

L. B. Gardner and Frank L. Dodge, both of Lansing, for appellee.

McDONALD, J.

The plaintiff has appealed from a decree of the circuit court for Washtenaw county, Mich. The issue involves an accounting and a determination of interests in a certain residence property in the city of Ann Arbor.

The parties are natives of Armenia. The defendants are children of the plaintiff's brother, Mihran Domboorajian, who was a preacher, working under the auspices of the Presbyterian Missionary Association in Armenia. He had a wife and eight children. In this world's goods they were very poor. The plaintiff came to this country in 1902, and for some years resided with his family at Petoskey, Mich., where he prospered as a merchant dealing in Persian rugs. On one of his return trips to Armenia he brought back to America two of the children, Peter and Christine. They became members of his family in Petoskey, and were supported and educated by him. Some years later, the defendant Haig Domboorajian, with his mother and five younger brothers and sisters, started for America. They became stranded in London, England, but finally reached New York, where they were met by the plaintiff. He paid their transportation and took them to his home in Petoskey, where they continued to live with his family until he moved to Lansing. There too they all lived with him until they were able to secure a home for themselves. The defendant Haig Domboorajian was educated at the State College and at the University of Michigan. He is now employed in civil engineering department of the city of Detroit. The plaintiff paid in part the expenses of his education. While the defendant Haig and his sister Christine were at Ann Arbor, they conceived the idea of buying a home there for themselves and other members of their family. They had no money. They appealed to the plaintiff. He went to Ann Arbor. Together they selected a residence property which could be bought on contract for $5,700, with an initial cash payment of $1,500. The plaintiff made this payment. A land contract was executed in which the plaintiff and the two defendants were named as vendees. The defendants and other members of their family moved into the house, rented rooms, and in time fully paid the balance of the purchase price. A warranty deed from the vendor described the plaintiff and the two defendants as grantees, so that, when this suit was begun, the three parties held the record title to the property as tenants in common.

The plaintiff's case is based upon the claim that, when he made the initial payment on the purchase of the property, it was orally agreed that he and the two defendants should each own a one-third interest therein, and that as security for the money which he had previously expended in their education and support, to the amount aproximately $3,000, he should have a lien on their two-thirds interest. The defendants deny this contention. It is their claim that the initial payment of $1,500 was a loan to them by the plaintiff, and that there was no agreement or understanding that he should have any interest in the property. In their cross-bill they admit an indebtedness to him of $1,200, and ask for a decree requiring him to give a quitclaim deed on the payment of that amount.

On the hearing, the circuit judge determined the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and fixed his interest in the property at $11,440, which included a third of the rents received by the defendants up to the time of suit. From the decree entered, the defendants gave notice of appeal, and filed a motion for a rehearing. The rehearing was granted. Further testimony was introduced by the defendants, after which the court made a new decree in which he gave the plaintiff a lien on the property for $1,750; that being the total amount he had invested in its purchase. From this decree the plaintiff has appealed.

The first question presented by the record is the claim of the plaintiff that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant a rehearing and to enter the second decree after the defendant had filed his claim of appeal from the first decree.

The right of a party to a rehearing, and the time in which it must be applied for, are governed by circuit court rule 56, the applicable part of which reads as follows:

‘On proper cause shown, a rehearing of an equitable action may be had. No application for such rehearing shall be heard unless filed within four months from the entry of the final decree.'

This rule gives a defeated party the absolute right to apply for a rehearing within four months. If he desires to appeal, the statute requires that he must file his claim and pay the fee within twenty days from the entry of the decree. If plaintiff be right in his contention, a party who exercises his right to appeal loses...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State ex rel. Bostian v. Ridge, 39364.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 2, 1945
    ......Ed. 1230; Hellman v. Adler & Sons, 60 Neb. 580, 83 N.W. 846; Chambliss v. Hass, 101 N.W. 153; Cook v. Smith, 58 Iowa, 607, 12 N.W. 617; Domboorajian v. Domboorajian, 235 Mich. 668, 209 N.W. 846; State ex rel. Inv. Co. v. Brown, 228 Mo. App. 760, 72 S.W. (2d) 859.         Julius C. Shapiro ......
  • State ex rel. Bostian v. Ridge
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 2, 1945
    ......1230; Hellman v. Adler & Sons, 60 Neb. 580, 83 N.W. 846; Chambliss v. Hass, 101 N.W. 153; Cook v. Smith, 58 Iowa 607,. 12 N.W. 617; Domboorajian v. Domboorajian, 235 Mich. 668, 209 N.W. 846; State ex rel. Inv. Co. v. Brown, 228. Mo.App. 760, 72 S.W.2d 859. . .          Julius. ......
  • Cummings' Estate, In re, 43
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 1, 1958
    ...have also filed in probate court his petition for rehearing. An analogous holding in a chancery case occurs in Domboorajian v. Domboorajian, 235 Mich 668, 209 N.W. 846. He might also within one year of the original probate court order have petitioned the circuit court for leave to file a de......
  • Raiche v. Foley
    • United States
    • United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
    • May 29, 1939
    ...for rehearing after notice of appeal has been filed, if said petition for rehearing is timely. The cases of Domboorajian v. Domboorajian et al., 235 Mich. 668, 209 N.W. 846; Clement v. Richards v. Meissner, 1904 C.D. 321; and Goddard v. Ordway, 101 U.S. 745, 25 L.Ed. 1040, are cited. The ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT