Gale v. Eckhart

• Decision Date: 17 December 1895
• Citation: 65 N.W. 274,107 Mich. 465
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GALE v. ECKHART ET AL.

65 N.W. 274

107 Mich. 465

GALE v. ECKHART ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 17, 1895

Error to circuit court, Clinton county; Sherman B. Daboll, Judge.

Summary proceeding before a circuit court commissioner by Maritta A. Gale against Charles Eckhart and others to recover possession of land. The commissioner found defendants guilty, and on appeal to the circuit court a verdict for complaint was set aside and the complainant dismissed. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Fedewa & Walbridge, for appellant.

Lyon & Dooling, for appellees.

McGRATH, C.J.

On October 30, 1893, defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff a deed of certain farm lands. The deed contained the following: "Parties of the first part reserve the use of said described lands until April 1, 1984." After said date, defendants refused to vacate, and summary proceedings were commenced before a circuit court commissioner to oust them. The show her right to possession, plaintiff produced her deed. The defense was that plaintiff procured the deed by fraudulent misrepresentations. The commissioner found defendants guilty. On appeal to the circuit, defendants were permitted to go into the alleged defense fully, and the jury found for plaintiff. The court, however, afterwards set aside that verdict, upon the ground that a question of title was involved, and dismissed the complaint, and plaintiff appeals. The rule must be regarded as settled in this state that the question of fraud in the procurement of a deed is properly triable in a court of equity only. Paldi v. Paldi, 95 Mich. 410, 54 N.W. 903; Moran v. Moran (Mich.) 63 N.W. 989. The defense here made would not be available in ejectment, and could not be invoked to oust the commissioner of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's deed was admissible for the purpose for which offered, viz. to show plaintiff's right of possession. Vos v. Dykema, 26 Mich. 399; Bennett v. Robinson, 27 Mich. 31; Gage v. Sanborn (Mich.) 64 N.W. 32. The judgment is reversed, and judgment entered here for plaintiff, with costs of all the courts.

MONTGOMERY, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred.