Heyer v. Lee
| Decision Date | 31 January 1879 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Abiah A. R. Heyer v. John H. Lee |
Submitted January 17, 1879
Appeal from Berrien. Submitted January 17. Decided January 31.
Decree affirmed with costs.
Potter & Potter for complainant. An unambiguous contract cannot be explained by parol, Ins. Co. v. Throop, 22 Mich. 146. A parol reservation cannot be made after a contract is signed Vanderkarr v. Thompson, 19 Mich. 82. No evidence is admissible to contradict the terms of a written contract Adair v. Adair, 5 Mich. 204; Schwarz v. Wendell Walk. Ch., 267; Jones v. Phelps, 5 Mich. 218; Holmes v. Hall, 8 Mich. 66; Cline v Hubbard, 31 Mich. 237.
N. A. Hamilton for defendant. Parol evidence of circumstances is admissible to aid in construing a written contract, Gray v. Harper, 1 Story 574; 1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 277-286; Facey v. Otis, 11 Mich. 213; Norris v. Showerman, 2 Doug. 16, Walk. Ch., 206; Reed v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 17 Am. L. Reg., 64. Terms of quantity are sometimes used indefinitely in deeds, Schmitz v. Schmitz, 19 Wis. 207; Dart v. Barbour, 32 Mich. 267. If a contract is of doubtful construction and the conveyance made in pursuance of it is unequivocal, the latter may be the best evidence of the actual agreement, Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, 423; the acceptance of the deed is prima facie to be considered the execution of the contract, Houghtaling v. Lewis, 10 Johns. 298. The specific performance of a contract is left to the discretion of the court to be decreed or not according to the circumstances (Smith v. Lawrence, 15 Mich. 499; McMurtrie v. Bennette, Har. Ch., 124) and the real intention of the parties, Chambers v. Livermore, 15 Mich. 381.
Complainant granted to defendant certain real estate in Chicago in exchange for part of a fruit farm in Berrien county. The original bargain was made in writing in Chicago, and was consummated April 20th, 1875. The premises to be conveyed by defendant were described therein as "being the south half of the fruit farm now owned by him in the south half of section thirty-four, township four south, range nineteen west, in the town of St. Joseph, county of Berrien, State of Michigan." April 24, 1875, the defendant, assuming to adhere to the requirements of the written contract, made a deed, and May 3d caused it to be delivered to complainant.
The terms of the description were wholly unlike those in the contract. The premises were described by metes and bounds, and the particulars were long and intricate. No one who had not previously applied the description to the place could gather from it whether it covered the premises identified by the contract or not. Still the deed was given by defendant as answering the same purpose as one containing the contract description, and complainant in good faith received it in the belief that there was no variance in effect.
Some time after the conveyance it was discovered by complainant that the bounds given in the deed included forty-nine hundredths of an acre less than half of the farm, and that if the lines were run in such manner as to give her the actual south half they would include a valuable barn, which, as the lines are given in the deed, is left on defendant's part of the farm. She then filed this bill to compel conveyance of the fraction of an acre with the barn on it, and the circuit court decreed in her favor and the defendant appealed. Complainant is satisfied with the decree as entered.
The case will not admit of much discussion. The defendant does not claim to have committed any mistake or to have been defrauded. He deliberately furnished both descriptions. His position is that he did not intend to sell the barn nor the actual south half of the farm, and used the expression "south half" in a conventional or modified sense only, and that complainant in fact received the deed with the description written in it as a grant of the lands bargained to her.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Pashby
...east half in quantity and the west half in quantity. Au Gres Boom Co. v. Whitney, 26 Mich. 42;Dart v. Barbour, 32 Mich. 267;Heyer v. Lee, 40 Mich. 353. The description, however, does not stop with the mere mention of the “east half” and “west half,” but contains other descriptive words of g......
-
Hartford Iron Min. Co. v. Cambria Min. Co.
...by the words; and the idea imported by the words ‘half of the lot’ is half in quantity.” This rule was again followed in Heyer v. Lee, 40 Mich. 353, and the former cases cited. Again, in Jones v. Pashby, 48 Mich. 634, 12 N. W. Rep. 884, the same question was presented, and the former opinio......
-
Jones v. Pashby
... ... The apparent meaning of the term "east half" and ... "west [62 Mich. 621] half" in the deeds between the ... Richardsons is the east half in quantity and the west half in ... quantity. Au Gres Boom Co. v. Whitney, 26 Mich. 42; ... Dart v. Barbour, 32 Mich. 267; Heyer v ... Lee, 40 Mich. 353. The description, however, does not ... stop with the mere mention of the "east half" and ... "west half," but contains other descriptive words ... of great significance, namely: "Containing fifty acres ... of land, being the west half of 100 acres of land deeded by ... ...
-
Hartford Iron Min.Co. v. Cambria Min. Co.
...show a contrary intention; and in support of this doctrine he cites Au Gres Boom Co. v. Whitney, supra, Dart v. Barbour, supra, and Heyer v. Lee, supra. for defendant, however, while not disputing that the rule has been fully established and settled by these cases as to the construction and......