Herrick v. Odell
| Citation | 29 Mich. 47 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1874 |
| Parties | Laura A. Herrick and others v. Samuel W. Odell |
Heard January 9, 1874
Appeal in Chancery from Muskegon Circuit.
Bill to redeem, etc. Complainant appeals. Decree modified.
Decree modified as to require block fifty-three to be conveyed to the heirs at law, free from any condition or payment, as to require defendant to pay to the administrator of Abram G Herrick the sum of one hundred and ninety-two dollars and sixteen cents, with interest from November 9, 1860, on or before the first day of April, 1874.
Edwin Potter and C. I. Walker, for complainants.
Smith & Nims and A. T. McReynolds, for defendant.
Christiancy J., did not sit in this case.
The bill in this cause was filed to obtain a release and redemption of certain property in Muskegon, formerly belonging to Abram G. Herrick, now deceased, in behalf of whose heirs and representatives this suit is brought.
The full legal title was vested by various methods in defendant, and the bill claims that his interest was only by way of security, and that he has been overpaid.
The property in dispute consisted of certain lots in block sixty-eight, and of entire block fifty-three, in Muskegon.
The dealings between the parties, so far as it becomes important to refer to them, were substantially as follows:
In September, 1857, Herrick gave a mortgage for one thousand dollars to defendant, on a farm in Kent county. In October, 1857, he gave a mortgage for eight hundred dollars upon the same farm, and included the property now in dispute. In December, 1858, defendant advanced two hundred and twenty dollars to get the legal title to block fifty-three, which he took in his own name, with Herrick's assent. He also let Herrick have goods at different stores, amounting to about three hundred and fifty dollars. And he claims subsequently to have taken up a tax title, or some similar claim, on block fifty-three, for ten dollars, but on this the proof is deficient. These are the money debits shown, and except the latter, not denied. This latter payment was claimed to have been made after November 9, 1860.
On the 29th of October, 1858, Herrick sold the lots in block sixty-eight to Cornelius Odell, defendant's father, subject to an outstanding mortgage, and the balance coming to him, nine hundred and forty-nine dollars, was turned over to defendant, who received his father's note therefor. This sale was absolute and so found by the court below, and although the property was afterwards conveyed to defendant by his father, we are satisfied, and it is conceded, it was conveyed in fee simple. The sum of nine hundred and forty-nine dollars is therefore chargeable to defendant as received at the date of the note, which he gave up to his father on receiving his conveyance. This left defendant confined to his security upon the farm and upon block fifty-three, for whatever might be or become due to him.
On November 9, 1860, the farm was sold by Herrick, and two thousand one hundred dollars of the purchase money paid or secured to defendant, he receiving seven hundred dollars cash and taking back a mortgage of one thousand four hundred dollars to himself, discharging the former mortgages. This left him invested with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Marble
...Barnes v. Camack, 1 Barb 392; State v. Jolly, 3 Dev. & Bat., 110; Ratcliff v. Wales, 1 Hill 63; Dickerman v. Graves, 6 Cush. 308; Herrick v. Odell, 29 Mich. 47. J. C. Shields for defendant. A husband cannot testify against his wife after divorce, either at common law (Bish. Mar. & Div., § 6......
-
People v. Zabijak
...or spoken under the protection of matrimonial association. Morrissey v. People, 11 Mich. 327;Grimm v. People, 14 Mich. 300;Herrick v. Odell, 29 Mich. 47.' The statute of 1861 referred to in the opinion of the court is the same as Comp.Laws 1929, § 14217, which is as follows: ‘No person shal......