Harrison v. Oakman
| Decision Date | 15 April 1885 |
| Citation | 56 Mich. 390,23 N.W. 164 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARRISON v. OAKMAN. |
Norton & Keat and G.W. Lawton, for defendant, (appellant.)
B.F Heckert, for complainant.
Complainant filed his bill, as owner of lands in Van Buren county, to set aside an alleged cloud upon his title arising from a deed and mortgage purporting to have been made by his grantor before he purchased, but which, as he claims, were executed by another person who appeared before the acknowledging officer and falsely assumed the character of the alleged grantor. He does not allege possession, but he sufficiently proved it on the hearing, so that it does not appear that he could try titles at law. The land in question belonged to an Indian named Joseph Manqua, and the bill avers title to complainant directly from Martha Manqua, and indirectly from Mary Bevins, formerly Mary Manqua, averred to be the only heirs of Joseph. It is averred, and the proofs seem to leave no serious doubt on the subject, that Henry Peasheway, in January, 1877, took an Indian woman before JAMES CURTIS, a justice of the peace of Hartford, in said county, and there procured her to execute and acknowledge a power of attorney in the name of Martha Manqua to Peasheway under which he mortgaged the land in question to defendant McCrary, and conveyed the fee to defendant Oakman. The justice, being examined as a witness, identified Mary Bertrand, an Indian relative of Martha Manqua, living in Indiana, as the woman who personated Martha, and she testified to having been deceived by Peasheway into supposing she was signing a paper of her own to enable her to obtain some property belonging to a deceased aunt. Mary Bertrand was examined through an interpreter, and the justice probably had no means of conferring with her except through Peasheway. The court below granted complainant relief by setting aside McCrary's mortgage and Oakman's deed. McCrary does not appeal. Oakman is the only one who complains of the decree. His defense rests, not only on his own title, but on the failure of complainant to make out his case.
The averment that Mary Bevins is a daughter and heir of Joseph Manqua is not sustained. Martha Manqua says they had different parents; and Jackson Manqua, Joseph's brother says his mother brought her up, and that her mother was not Joseph's wife, and that Mary was taken care of among the neighbors at different places. She is sworn also to be an old woman, while Martha is a young woman. The descent of Mary Bevins seems to be from some other father or, at least, there is nothing satisfactory pointing to Joseph, and her heirship from him is clearly negatived. This reduces his claim to his title from Martha, and as her deed is full and conveys all her interest, and as she seems to be Joseph's sole heir, it gave complainant a title, if genuine and competent. But we think the testimony is not sufficient to make out a clear case in his behalf. The exact age of Martha does not appear, but there are facts showing it very nearly. Moses Hawley was her guardian, appointed in 1877, and says she became of age in 1878. He moved onto his land, near where Martha was born, in the spring of 1857. His own wife had a child in 1857, and was sent for and present at Martha's birth the same year. This renders it certain that Martha was not born earlier than the spring of 1857. The deed which complainant says was made by Martha to him, was made in January, 1878, when, if Hawley is correct, she was yet a minor, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial