Highstone v. Burdette

• Decision Date: 22 April 1886
• Citation: 61 Mich. 54,27 N.W. 852
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HIGHSTONE v. BURDETTE and others.

27 N.W. 852

61 Mich. 54

HIGHSTONE v. BURDETTE and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 22, 1886

Error to Mackinac.

Charles R. Brown, for plaintiff.

Humphrey & Perkins, for defendants and appellants.

CHAMPLIN, J.

This case was before this court, and was disposed of at the June term, 1884, and is reported in 54 Mich. at page 329, and 20 N.W. 64, to which reference is made for the main facts in the case. The only additional facts appearing in the record now before us consists of testimony which tended to show that plaintiff's grantors were aware of the fact that Louis Martin was in possession of the whole premises, and claiming to own the whole thereof as early as 1863 or 1864. The testimony was given by Louis Claremont, who testified that he visited Martin in 1870, while he was residing upon the place and offered to sell him his interest in the property, and told him that he was an heir; that Martin replied that he had bought that property once from John, and did not need to buy it a second time. He testified: "I knew, before that time, for six or seven years before 1870 that Martin was on the place, and I knew four or five years before 1870 that he claimed the whole land." He afterwards corrects this statement, and said that he knew that Martin was on the place from hearsay, but did not know he claimed to own it all; that his brother Alexander, four or five years before 1870, wrote him a letter telling him that Martin was living on the place, but did not say how he claimed it; and that he did not mean to say that he knew four or five years before 1870, that Martin claimed the whole land, and that he did not know it until he came to St. Ignace in 1870. This witness also testified that he had a talk with Mrs. Martin about the land in 1870; that she followed him to Mackinac island, and offered him $10 to buy his right, which he refused. It appears that the sale of the land from John Claremont to Louis Martin was made through an interpreter Claremont being unable to speak in the French language, and Martin being unable to converse in English.

The plaintiff produced John Claremont as a witness, and in the course of his examination he was asked: "State the conversation between you at the time the bargain was made." This was objected to by the defendants' counsel on the ground that the same was irrelevant and incompetent, and that any previous conversation was merged in the written instrument. The court overruled the objection, and the witness testified that he told him that he had brothers, and that he only owned a quarter interest in the land; that nothing was said about getting deeds from the other brothers. It is contended that the ruling made, by which this testimony was admitted, was error; that it allowed the grantor in a deed to change the effect of his own deed by parol, and, in this instance, to change a sole estate in fee into a tenancy in common. The general rule is that a written agreement concludes the parties to it, and, as between them, excludes all parol evidence to contradict, vary, or materially affect it; but to this rule there are exceptions, and a party to the instrument may show by parol that he was defrauded in the transaction; but a stranger to the instrument is not estopped from contradicting it by parol evidence in order to prevent a fraudulent operation of it upon his interests. Johnson v. Blackman, 11 Conn. 351; Rex v. Scammonden, 3 Term R. 474; King v. Laindon, 8 Term R. 379; Reading v. Weston, 8 Conn. 117.

In this case the plaintiff does not claim through John Claremont, nor were his grantors parties or privies to the deed made by him but he is a stranger to the instrument, and he is not estopped from contradicting it by parol evidence in order to prevent the fraudulent operation of it upon his interests derived from the co-heirs of John Claremont. This being so, there is...