Garvey v. Parkhurst

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GRANT, J. (after stating the facts).
• Citation: Garvey v. Parkhurst, 127 Mich. 368, 86 N.W. 802 (Mich. 1901)
• Decision Date: 02 July 1901
• Parties: GARVEY v. PARKHURST.

86 N.W. 802

127 Mich. 368

GARVEY v. PARKHURST.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1901

Error to circuit court, Muskegon county; Fred J. Russell, Judge.

Action by Emma Garvey against Henry Parkhurst. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This was a summary proceeding under the statute, before a circuit court commissioner, to recover possession of 40 acres of land occupied by the defendant as a farm. Both parties derived their title from the same grantor, Charles Garvey, who resided in Heckley, Miss. Complainant is the mother of Charles and Harry. Harry wrote Charles on April 4, 1896 stating that he desired to purchase the premises, and asked his terms. To this Charles replied on April 6th as follows 'You ask me what I would do with you about my place. If you want it, I will let you have it for $150, and you pay the back taxes. I will give you five years to pay it in, but I can't give you a contract until I come ome. I don't expect to come home for two years, but you can go on and build a house, and I will give you a contract then. You will have to pay the taxes this summer.' The case was submitted upon the testimony of the complainant alone, and the record does not show whether Harry wrote, accepting the proposition of Charles. It does, however, appear from complainant's own testimony that Harry went into possession, relying upon the contract created by this letter that he or his assignee paid the taxes; that he made improvements; and that Harry remained in possession about a year, when he executed an assignment in writing of all 'his right, title, and interest to a certain place spoken of in this letter from his brother, Charles Garvey,--the place on Sec. 6-10-14 west, Mooreland township.' Defendant went into possession, worked the farm, and made other improvements. Complainant was not pleased with the transfer of the property, which had once been her home, to the defendant. She thereupon purchased a tax title, and brought suit upon it. She was defeated in that, and defendant paid her the taxes. She then obtained a quitclaim deed from her son Charles, for which she paid no consideration. Upon receipt of this deed, she served notice upon defendant to quit, and, after waiting three months, instituted this suit. Complainant admitted that she knew that her son Harry went into possession and made improvements pursuant to the terms of the letter to him from Charles. She evidently understood that there was a contract between Charles and Harry, by which the former agreed to sell to the latter the land, and fully understood its terms, for she saw the letter at the time it was received. The court directed a verdict for the defendant.

Turner & Turner, for appellant.

Sessions & Sutherland, for appellee.

GRANT J. (after stating the facts).

1. It is urged that the contract, if any existed, between Charles...