Hall v. Redson
| Decision Date | 22 April 1862 |
| Citation | 10 Mich. 21 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edmund Hall v. Anson Redson and others |
Heard April 10, 1862; April 11, 1862,
Appeal in Chancery from Shiawassee Circuit. The bill was filed to quiet the title to lands, and the case, so far as passed upon, is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Decree of the court dismissing the bill affirmed, with costs, but with modification, the dismissal be without prejudice.
E Hall, complainant in person.
Goulds & Hanchett, for defendants.
Christiancy J.:
Complainant claimed title to the land in question by several mesne conveyances through Hayward, who purchased from the Government. The title of complainant was denied by the answer. Hayward conveyed to James Crombie. The original deed from James Crombie and wife to Stebbins, through which complainant claims to derive his title, was not introduced but complainant, for proof of this deed, produced and relied upon a transcript of the record from the registry of deeds It is objected by the defense that the record was not competent proof of this deed, on the ground that it has but a single subscribing witness to its execution by James Crombie, and was not therefore entitled to be recorded as to him.
The execution and witnessing of the deed, so far as this point is involved, was in the following form.
"Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of
James Crombie. [seal.]
Calista A. Crombie. [seal.]
B. Rush Bagg.
Crombie and wife are described in the deed as being "of Rochester in the State of New York." The deed is acknowledged by James Crombie before B. Rush Bagg (the subscribing witness), a Notary Public in and for the county of Wayne, in the State of Michigan, and by the wife, Calista A. Crombie, before Henry Pratt, a commissioner of deeds in and for the county of Monroe in the State of New York. We are therefore entirely satisfied from what appears upon the deed that it was executed by James Crombie in Wayne county, Michigan, and by the wife in Monroe county, New York, or, at least, not at the same time and place as by the husband; that the witnesses John Crombie and Stephen Cook intended to confine their attestation to the execution by the wife alone, in accordance with the restrictive words opposite their names, for which there could otherwise have been no use or propriety, and consequently that Bagg is the only subscribing witness to the execution by James Crombie.
The statute in force at the time this deed was executed and recorded, required two witnesses to its execution by the grantor, "or person from whom the estate or interest was intended to pass," to entitle it to record.--Comp L., §§ 2720, 2727. It is, therefore, clear that a sole deed of James Crombie, thus witnessed, would not have been entitled to record--Galpin v. Abbott, 6 Mich. 17; and the record would be entirely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hudson
...523, 40 L.Ed. 688 (1896); Brown v. King, 172 Mich. 355, 137 N.W. 729, 731 (1912); Loomis v. Brush, 36 Mich. 40 (1877); and Hall v. Redson, 10 Mich. 21 (1862)). Further, a highly-respected commentator has stated “an instrument that is not recorded in accordance with the Michigan recording ac......
-
In The Matter Of Mary P. Brandt v. Richardson
...been executed in violation of law are ineffective to provide notice to subsequent purchasers, even if they are recorded. See Hall v. Redson, 10 Mich. 21 (1862) (noting that a deed witnessed by one person, rather than two, “would not have been entitled to record ... and the record would be e......
-
In re Brandt, Bankruptcy No. GK 08-04216.
...of the Michigan statutes are "entirely inoperative either as notice to purchasers or as evidence of the deed." Hall v. Redson, 10 Mich. 21, 1862 WL 2472 at *1 (1862); accord Dohm v. Haskin, 88 Mich. 144, 147, 50 N.W. 108, 109 (1891). As stated by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grand Rapids N......
-
Richardson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In re Brandt)
...of the Michigan statutes are "entirely inoperative either as notice to purchasers or as evidence of the deed." Hall v. Redson, 10 Mich. 21, 1862 WL 2472 at *1 (1862); accord Dohm v. Haskin, 88 Mich. 144, 147, 50 N.W. 108, 109 (1891). As stated by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grand Rapids N......