Gulf Ref. Co. v. Perry
| Decision Date | 25 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 37.,37. |
| Citation | 303 Mich. 487,6 N.W.2d 756 |
| Parties | GULF REFINING CO. v. PERRY et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by the Gulf Refining Company, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Michigan, against Milton H. Perry, Gladys B. Perry and the State Land Office Board. From an adverse decree the State Land Office Board appeals.
Decree in accordance with opinion.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County, in Chancery; Leland W. carr, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., and Elbern Parsons, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State Land Office Board.
Shields, Ballard, Jennings & Taber, of Lansing, for appellee.
Plaintiff, Gulf Refining Company, filed this bill in chancery to set aside the sale of certain land in the city of Lansing by the State Land Office Board, to declare void a deed of the same to defendant Milton H. Perry, and to decree that any title obtained by him inure to the benefit of plaintiff. Appellant, State Land Office Board, filed answer and motion to dismiss (which was denied), proofs were taken and decree entered for plaintiff. The State land office board appeals from that part of the decree holding that the sale was void. Defendants Milton H. and Gladys B. Perry offered no defense and have not appealed. The facts are not in dispute.
Prior to August 4, 1935, the defendants Milton H. Perry and Gladys B. Perry were the owners of a certain parcel of land in the city of Lansing, referred to in this case as parcel No. 3. This property was subject to a mortgage to the American State Savings Bank which was foreclosed, the property bid in by the mortgagee whose title became absolute on the date mentioned. Subsequently and on February 13, 1936, plaintiff purchased said property, together with another piece, referred to in this case as parcel No. 2, from said bank and received one deed describing both parcels No. 2 and No. 3. The agent of plaintiff informed the city assessor of the acquisition of the property in question but the assessor changed the assessment as to parcel No. 2 only, and continued to assess parcel No. 3 to defendant Perry. Thereupon, the treasurer, in conformity with the tax roll as it came into his hands, sent out statements on parcel No. 3 to defendant Perry. This resulted in the failure of plaintiff, Gulf Refining Company, to receive any tax statement covering parcel No. 3. Defendant Perry, on receipt of the tax notices, if he did receive them, did nothing. The agent of plaintiff, on receipt of tax notices which covered parcel No. 2 but did not in fact contain any description of parcel No. 3, assumed, contrary to fact, that parcel No. 3 was included in the tax statement and remitted to the treasurer in accordance with such statement, receiving receipts that corresponded with such statement. Said agent in so doing thought taxes were being paid also on parcel No. 3. Defendant Milton H. Perry did nothing to advise either the plaintiff or any public official of the receipt by him of tax statements and nobody paid the 1936 tax on parcel No. 3. Parcel No. 3, being delinquent for the 1936 tax thereon, the auditor general included it in the petition in the regular 1939 tax sale proceeding in Ingham county and same was sold to the State, as required by the terms of the 1939 Ingham county tax sale decree. On expiration of the period of redemption, parcel No. 3 was deeded to the State by the auditor general, as provided by statute, came under the jurisdiction of defendant and appellant State Land Office Board, was offered for sale by said board at its February, 1941, scavenger sale and struck off to defendant Milton H. Perry for $87.50, that being 25 per cent of the assessed valuation, there being no higher bidders. Defendant Perry has paid the amount of such bid to the State land office board and received from said board a conveyance of parcel No. 3 so struck off to him.
The principal concern of the defendant State Land Office Board on this appeal seems to be because the decree declares the sale void. On the record before us, the finding of the court below that the sale and the resulting deed are void is not essential to decision and may be set aside. For the purposes of this case, so far as decision is involved, the sale and deed may be allowed to stand. Defendant Milton H. Perry, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, concealed the situation from the plaintiff and sought to advantage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eplus Group Inc. v. Huntington Nat'l Bank
...for unjust enrichment when the defendant's own inequitable conduct contributed to plaintiffs' loss. See, e.g., Gulf Refining Co. v. Perry, 303 Mich. 487, 6 N.W.2d 756, 757 (1942) (granting relief to prevent defendants “to profit from their own wrong.”). El Camino, however, has not supported......
-
City of Detroit v. Walker
...exclusively in rem and that there is no personal liability for them. We think the contrary to be true. [See] Gulf Refining Co. v. Perry, 303 Mich. 487, 490, 6 N.W.2d 756 (1942).In Gulf Refining, we stated that despite the defendant having had a mortgage foreclosed, and the mortgagee's title......
-
McClintock v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Pardee)
...land sold to make it.’ Schaefer v. Woodmere Cemetery Association, 256 Mich. 332, 239 N.W. 300, 301 (1931); see Gulf Refining Co. v. Perry, 303 Mich. 487, 6 N.W.2d 756, 757 (1942); Gilken Corp. v. Commissioner, 176 F.2d 141, 144 (C.A. 6, 1949), affirming 10 T.C. 445 (1948); Ernest Kern Co., ......
-
McCreary v. Shields
...holding title for the benefit of defrauded party, for fraud preceding the State's acquisition of title. Gulf Refining Co. v. Perry, 303 Mich. 487, 491-492, 6 N.W.2d 756. The instant case so far as concerns defendant Shields, falls fairly within the rule as to unjust We do not intend by this......