Haff v. Haff

• Decision Date: 23 September 1884
• Citation: 54 Mich. 511,20 N.W. 563
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HAFF v. HAFF. (Original Bill.) HAFF v. JENNEY. (Cross-Bill.)

20 N.W. 563

54 Mich. 511

HAFF v. HAFF. (Original Bill.)

HAFF v. JENNEY. (Cross-Bill.)

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 23, 1884

Appeal from Macomb.

J.B Eldredge, for complainant.

Baldwin & Draper, for defendant.

COOLEY C.J.

The purpose of the original bill in this cause was to set aside as void a deed of 40 acres of land in Sterling, Macomb county, made by complainant and his wife to defendant Jenney in November, 1849; and also another deed of the same lands given by defendant Jenney to Asenath Haff and Lorenzo D Haff, in February, 1868, and a mortgage of the same date given by the grantees to Jenney, for the sum of $1,400, and to restrain Jenney from further proceeding with a foreclosure of the mortgage.The leading facts in the case are the following:

Asenath Haff is the wife of complainant, and Lorenzo D. Haff, his son.Defendant Jenney is his brother-in-law, having married his sister.Mrs. Haff and Lorenzo, by their answer to the original bill, admit complainant's equities, and the cross-bill is filed by them, to have the mortgage and the accompanying notes given by them to Jenney set aside.The mortgage, in addition to the 40 acres, covered another parcel of 81 acres, the legal title to which was in Asenath Haff.The title to the land in question, and also to another 80 acres in the township of Troy, Oakland county, was derived by a deed to complainant from his father, Jacob Haff, made in 1845.Jacob, at the time of conveying the lands to him, was considerably indebted to one Page, and it was necessary this indebtedness should be paid off.It is alleged in the bill that in the summer of 1849complainant became insane.Jenney denies this, and much testimony was taken upon this issue.In November of that year complainant deeded the 40 acres in question, and also the 80 acres in Troy, to Jenney, as he says, and as his testimony tends to show, without consideration, and only because of the disordered condition of his mind.Jenney sold the Troy 80 to obtain the means of paying off the Page debt, and the proceeds were made use of for that purpose by consent of all concerned.Jenney claims that the conveyance to him of the 40 acres was upon full consideration, and that the arrangement was made at the solicitation of complainant's wife and parents.

In 1866complainant removed from the lot in controversy a barn he had built upon it, and Jenney brought suit at law against him for doing so.Complainant thereupon filed a bill in equity to set aside his deed of this lot to Jenney, and to restrain the action at law, alleging that the deed was made when he was incompetent.Issue was joined in the chancery suit, and some testimony taken, when, in 1868, complainant's wife and his son Lorenzo, without the knowledge of complainant, went to Jenney and made an arrangement whereby the lot in question was deeded to them, and they gave back the mortgage of $1,400, now in controversy.This it was agreed was to be in settlement of the litigation.Mrs. Haff claims that she was not aware at the time that the mortgage covered her own lands, and says she did not agree that it should, and both she and Lorenzo insist that the arrangement was brought about by the arts of Jenney, and was fraudulent.Complainant...