Eccard v. Brush
| Decision Date | 05 April 1882 |
| Citation | 11 N.W. 756,48 Mich. 3 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | ECCARD v. BRUSH and another. |
In a suit against executors, upon transactions with their decedent, the surviving party to the transactions cannot testify to matters equally within the knowledge of the decedent, but of no other person. Comp.Laws, � __.
A bill for an accounting does not present a case for equitable relief unless the proof shows an agreement sufficiently clear and distinct to support it.
Courts should not discourage the recognition of merely moral obligations by proceeding as if they could have been enforced at law.
A complainant on a bill for an accounting, having intelligently accepted a fair payment as a full settlement of all claims ought not to be permitted to repudiate the settlement
Appeal from superior court of Detroit.
F.A Baker, for defendants.
The bill in this case was filed against the defendants as executors of and trustees under the last will and testament of Edmund A. Brush, and also against them in their own right for an accounting and to compel them to pay over a certain sum of money claimed by the complainant. In October, 1863, Francis Eccard, now deceased, the husband of complainant, leased from Edmund A. and Alfred E. Brush a certain lot in the city of Detroit, for the term of four years at an annual rental of $50, with the right in the lessors at the end of the term to purchase the buildings and improvements thereon at a valuation not to exceed $8,000, and if they did not purchase, then the lease was to be renewed upon a new rental to be agreed upon, with a like agreement at the expiration of the renewed term and so on.
After the decease of Francis Eccard there being rent due and in arrears upon this, and also upon another lease between the same parties, the complainant as sole devisee of Francis Eccard, by an indorsement in writing on the lease, surrendered to the surviving lessor Edmund A. Brush all interest under the lease in consideration of a discharge from the performance of any of the covenants thereof by Mrs. Eccard. At this time the property had a valuable warehouse thereon, of perhaps the value of $2,500, which had been erected by Francis Eccard, and the premises had been sublet to third parties at an annual rental of $600 and upon which lease certain rents were due and unpaid.
The claim now made is that the surrender was made as a security merely, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lorimer v. Lorimer
... ... Schratz. 35 Mich. 485; ... Hart v. Carpenter, 36 Mich. 402; Harmon v. Dart, 37 Mich ... 53; Howard v. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795; Eccard v. Brush, 48 ... Mich. 3, 11 S.W. 756; Foster v. Hill, 55 Mich. 540, 22 N.W ... 30; Pendill v. Neuburger, 67 Mich. 562, 35 N.W. 249; Taylor ... ...
-
McDannel v. Black
...unless some fraud, mistake, omission, or inaccuracy is shown. Hager v. Thomson, 1 Black (66 U. S.) 80, 17 L. Ed. 41, and Eccard v. Brush, 48 Mich. 3, 11 N. W. 756. And if the party seeking relief was aware of the facts at the time of the settlement of the account, then the subsequently soug......
-
Strandt v. Strandt
...present a case for equitable relief unless the proofs show an agreement sufficiently clear and distinct to support it. Eccard v. Brush, Executors, 48 Mich. 3, 11 N.W. 756 (syllabus). Each of these remedies require satisfactory proofs in support of the averments of the parties and of the dec......
-
Estate of Humphrey, Matter of
...unless some fraud, mistake, omission or inaccuracy is shown (Hager v. Thomson, 1 Black [66 U.S.], 80, 17 L.Ed. 41, and Eccard v. Brush, 48 Mich. 3, 11 N.W. 756); and if the party seeking relief was aware of the facts at the time of the settlement of the account, then the subsequently sought......