Hammontree v. Lott

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Marston, J.
• Citation: Hammontree v. Lott, 40 Mich. 190 (Mich. 1879)
• Decision Date: 21 January 1879
• Parties: John W. Hammontree v. Chauncey Lott and Leonard G. Lott

40 Mich. 190

John W. Hammontree v. Chauncey Lott and Leonard G. Lott

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 21, 1879

Heard January 9, 1879

Appeal from Gratiot. Heard Jan. 9. Decided Jan. 21.

Decree of the court affirmed with costs.

Benton Hanchett for complainant and appellee. One who neither has nor can have any interest in a controversy as to a title is not a proper party to a bill to quiet the title, Silver v. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Cummings v. Freer, 26 Mich. 128; Moore v. Mandlebaum, 8 Mich. 433; Brown v. Lynch, 1 Paige 147. Different causes of the same nature between the same parties may be joined when the same relief is prayed and different titles held by the same persons may be asserted in the same case, Damouth v. Klock, 29 Mich. 289; Scofield v. Lansing, 17 Mich. 437; Wales v Newbould, 9 Mich. 45; if one person makes use of another's name, and with his consent, to complicate a title, they should be joined as parties to a bill to quiet the title, Ingersoll v. Kirby, Walk. Ch., 65; Morton v Weil, 33 Barb. 30; Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682; Pierson v. David, 1 Clarke (Ia.), 31. Parol testimony is admissible to show mistake in a deed, Tripp v. Hasceig, 20 Mich. 254; Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch., 585; 1 Story's Eq. Jur., §§ 153, 156. A bona fide purchaser is one who buys in good faith for a valuable consideration actually paid without notice of an outstanding equity, Thomas v. Graham, Walk. Ch., 117; Dixon v. Hill, 5 Mich. 404; Warner v. Whittaker, 6 Mich. 133; Blanchard v. Tyler, 12 Mich. 339; Stone v. Welling, 14 Mich. 514; Boxheimer v. Gunn, 24 Mich. 372; Palmer v. Williams, 24 Mich. 328; Fitzhugh v. Barnard, 12 Mich. 104. A statement by a quit-claim grantor that he has no right to the land is enough to put the purchaser upon inquiry and prevent him from being a bona fide purchaser, Willcox v. Hill, 11 Mich. 256, and places on him the burden of proving that he paid a valuable consideration, Dickerson v. Tillinghast, 4 Paige 215; Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410; Harris v. Norton, 16 Barb. 264.

Randolph Strickland for defendants and appellants.

Marston, J. The other Justices concurred.

OPINION

Marston, J.

In this case it was urged that John Thorborn and Mary Jane Irwin should have been made parties defendant. We are of a contrary opinion. Neither one has any interest whatever in the matter in issue between these parties, both having heretofore conveyed all their interest in and to the premises in dispute, and the relief prayed for if granted can in no way affect them or either of them.

The principal object sought is to have it declared that the title which Chauncey Lott acquired from Mary J. Irwin, to the premises in question, he and his son Leonard G. as his grantee of a part thereof, hold in trust for complainant who was the equitable owner and in the possession thereof, and that they be required to convey to him. Neither of these persons who, it is said, should have been made parties, hold or claim any interest in opposition to the claim made or relief sought by complainant. The complainant claims title to the premises as grantee of Thorborn, who is interested if at all in seeing that the relief sought is obtained. Whatever question might be raised between Thorborn and his grantor on account of the mistake in the conveyance to which they were parties, in no way concerns these defendants who are not in a position in this case to raise any such question, as their rights, neither in the present controversy nor in any that might hereafter arise on account thereof, could in any way be affected thereby.

It is also claimed that the bill is multifarious in that it also asks that a certain tax-deed obtained by said Chauncey Lott upon the lands in controversy should be declared void. The bill is filed by a person in possession, under the statute, to establish and quiet his title to the premises, and it matters not through how many different sources, or under how many distinct and separate instruments defendants claim title thereto, all may be put in issue and disposed of in one case. The complainant cannot be required to file a separate bill to determine the validity of each separate claim of title made by the defendants. This would but create a multiplicity of suits, which is not favored in equity. If these defendants severally claimed title to separate and distinct parcels of this land from different sources, or if defendant Chauncey claimed title to the south half under the deed from Mrs. Irwin, and Leonard G. the north half under the tax-deed, then they could not be joined as defendants in this action, but such is not the case here. Hunton v. Platt, 11 Mich. 264. Chauncey Lott, after he had secured the deed from Mary Jane Irwin, and after he had obtained the tax-deed, conveyed a part of the premises to his son, who it is alleged was not a bona fide purchaser. Under such circumstances both may be joined as parties defendant.

The principal question in dispute is whether Chauncey Lott purchased in good faith and for a valuable consideration these premises from Mary Jane Irwin, who was the sole heir-at-law of John McCarty deceased, who was the patentee of these lands from the United States.

McCarty obtained his title from the United States in 1856. The same year he sold the lands to John Thorborn, but in conveying the same they were described as being in range two west instead of four west. In 1859 Thorborn conveyed these lands by warranty deed, and in this and all the subsequent deeds of conveyance the lands were correctly described, and all of these deeds were duly recorded. After Chauncey Lott...