Hodson v. Van Fossen
| Decision Date | 29 October 1872 |
| Citation | 26 Mich. 68 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Thomas T. Hodson v. Ralph W. Van Fossen |
Heard October 22, 1872
Error to Washtenaw circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs of both courts.
Cutcheon & Allen and Henry M. Cheever, for plaintiff in error.
C Joslin, for defendant in error.
This is an action of ejectment for about eleven acres of land, situated near the city of Ypsilanti. The premises demanded embrace a parcel of some three acres, having a dwelling house, where Hodson, who was defendant below, resided with his wife.
The only questions in the case relate to this parcel, there being no controversy about the residue. Van Fossen recovered judgment for the whole premises. It was conceded, on the trial, that Mrs. Hodson was in under a deed from Mrs. Van Fossen, wife of the plaintiff below. It also appeared that Mrs. Van Fossen's title depended upon a deed to her by an attorney in fact, empowered by herself and husband to make conveyance. It was not pretended, on any hand, that Hodson, who was defendant, had asserted any other claim or right than such as belonged to him in his character of husband of the person who claimed to be the owner under the deed from the wife of the plaintiff below, and who was in possession. The suit being against Hodson alone, Van Fossen was permitted, against a seasonable objection, to go into evidence that the deed from the attorney to Mrs. Van Fossen had never been delivered, and it is too plain to be disputed, that the real and only object of the suit was to try the validity of that conveyance and obtain an adjudication upon the title of Hodson's wife.
The suit was not rightly constituted for that purpose. Mrs Hodson, not being a party, no judgment respecting the title could affect her rights, and a judgment against her husband, if of any legal value whatever, could not be the basis for disturbing her possession, or warrant his expulsion from her. The continuance of her right and possession includes the right that her husband may occupy with her, and this cannot be taken away by an ejectment process against him alone. The proceeding was erroneous and fruitless. In cases like the present, where husband and wife occupy together the wife's lands, or lands colorably belonging to the wife, and the object of an ejectment is to try her title, both should be made defendants. By no other course can the remedy be harmonized with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delfelder v. Teton Land & Investment Co.
... ... 237, 23 Wyo. 209. Action against the ... executrix alone would not have concluded the personal rights ... claimed by the widow. Hodson v. Van Fossen, 26 Mich ... 68. At page 3 of the brief of plaintiff in error, it is ... stated she became vested with title upon the death of her ... ...
-
Sexton v. Sutherland
... ... one of the parties jointly entitled to the possession is ... before the court." See also Shoemaker v ... Gardner, 19 Mich. 96; Hodson v. Van Fossen, 26 ... Mich. 68 ... "What ... has been said above disposes of the only point raised and ... argued by the ... ...
-
Sexton v. Sutherland
...only one of the parties jointly entitled to the possession is before the court.” See, also, Shoemaker v. Gardner, 19 Mich. 96;Hodson v. Van Fossen, 26 Mich. 68. What has been said above disposes of the only point raised and argued by the appellant. However Mr. Justice ROBINSON has seen fit ......
-
Altman v. Schuneman
...Ga. 236. Bremseth v. Olsen, (N. D.) 112 N.W. 1056. It cannot concern the creditor whether the title is in the husband or wife. Hodson v. Van Fossen, 26 Mich. 68. v. Hurtt, 26 Wyo. 332. Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the order appealed from. Before BLUME, C. J., KIMBALL, J., and BROWN, Dist......