Hyne v. Osborn
| Decision Date | 01 July 1886 |
| Citation | 28 N.W. 821,62 Mich. 235 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HYNE v. OSBORN and others. |
Appeal from Livingston.
F.M Osborn, for defendants.
Complainant files his bill to obtain partition of certain premises. It was dismissed in the court below. One Isachar Osborn died in the township of Brighton, November 15, 1884. At the time of his death he was seized in fee-simple of the S.W. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 and the S.E. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4, of section 8 township 2 N., of range 6 E., in said township of Brighton and county of Livingston. He left a will, which was duly admitted to probate. By the provisions of said will he bequeathed all his property, including his 80 acres of land it being the only real estate he owned, to his widow, Arminda Osborn, during the term of her natural life, or so long as she should remain unmarried, limiting her power over the property to her support during widowhood. At the death or marriage of the said Arminda the property was to be equally divided between his children, to-wit, Nathaniel Tompkins Bethel, John, Lavina, and Arminda, all of whom were living at the time of his death. The widow did not remarry, and died December 10, 1850. John Osborn died about 1868, leaving as his heirs Reuben M., James, Mary, and Clara Osborn, and Luana Smith. Mary intermarried with one Haynes, and clara with one Leffingwell. Lavina Osborn intermarried with one Van Leuven, and died in 1854, leaving surviving her, as her heirs at law, Eliza Ann Van Leuven, Julia Ann Johnson, and Cassander Van Leuven. Eliza Ann married one Arms. Arminda Osborn. daughter of Isachar, married one Silas Wood, and died in Brighton in 1869, leaving the following heirs: Alfred S. Wood, William Wood, Charles Wood, Cornelius Wood, and Eliza Craig.
The complainant claims that he acquired the interest of said John Osborn in said premises, to-wit, the undivided one-fifth part thereof, by a quitclaim deed from his five heirs, heretofore named, dated April 17, 1884. He also avers that he purchased the share of said Lavina Osborn, and his title to the same is evidenced by three quitclaim deeds: One from Eliza Ann Arms, dated February 8, 1883; one from Julia Ann Johnson, of date February 8, 1884; and one from Cassander Van Leuven and wife, dated February 8, 1884. He further alleges that he bought one-fifth part of the share of said Arminda Osborn, and took a quitclaim deed of the same, from Alfred S. Wood, her son, February 23, 1884. This secured to him, as he claims, eleven twenty-fifths of the premises; and he admits and charges in his bill that defendant Nathaniel Tompkins Osborn is the owner of the remaining fourteen twenty-fifths by descent and purchase, as follows: His own share, one-fifth; the share of Bethel, one-fifth; and four-fifths of his sister Arminda's share, being four twenty-fifths of the whole land acquired from his heirs, William, Cornelius, and Charles Wood, and Eliza Craig.
The defendant James Osborn, son of John Osborn, was a minor when he deeded to complainant, such deed being executed by Lewis Smith, his guardian. He is made a defendant, as complainant avers, to determine the validity of his deed.
The defendant Nathaniel Tompkins Osborn denies the right and title of complainant to any share or interest in said premises, and claims to own the whole of the same himself. He alleges that he purchased John's share before 1850, and also about the same time he bought the interest of Bethel, Lavina, and Arminda; that ever since the twenty-fourth day of December, 1850, he has owned the whole of said premises in fee-simple, and had open, notorious, and adverse possession of said land against everybody, and has paid all the taxes assessed against the said premises from that date to the present time.
It appears from the proofs that from the time of his father's decease up to the date of his mother's death, the defendant Nathaniel Tompkins Osborn lived upon the premises, and took care of his mother. He paid the debts of his father's funeral expenses and doctor's bills, whether out of the personal property left by his father or defendant's earnings from the farm does not clearly appear; but it is pretty certain that there was not more than enough in value of such personal property to liquidate the same. About all that was left of the father's estate was this 80 acres of land. He also paid the funeral and other expenses of his mother's last sickness and death. After her decease he lived upon the land, and worked and controlled it as his own, improving it, and paying all taxes and assessments upon it. He has always been in possession of the premises, either by actual occupancy himself or that of a tenant holding under him. He shows, by a number of witnesses, that he purchased the share of his brother John, and paid him in full for the same. This purchase was made very soon after his father's death. It is evidenced by a contract put in proof by the complainant, and signed by John, dated, as complainant claims, November 30, 1849, and as defendant alleges, November 30, 1844. We are inclined to think, from an examination of the original contract, that the date is meant for 1844, as claimed by the defendant. He also proves by William A. Clark, who drew the instrument, that his brother John executed and delivered a deed of his interest to him sometime in the year 1850, at Brighton. This deed was afterwards given to John to take home with him to Ingham county, for his wife to sign and acknowledge. It is shown by the admissions of John to several persons that his wife would not sign the deed, but took it, and tore it up. One witness, Isaac Crippen, a farmer 46 years old, residing at Conway, Livingston county, testifies that he was living with John Osborn in Ingham county, and saw the deed brought home by John, and heard it read by him. Heard his wife say she would not sign it, and that she would burn it up. John Osborn, after 1850, made no claim to Nathaniel Tompkins Osborn for his share in the estate, nor have any of his heirs done so. His daughter Luana Smith was 41 years old in 1885, and the other heirs have been a long time of age, except James.
We are satisfied from the evidence of the witnesses, and the long acquiescence of John Osborn and his heirs in the claim of title exercised by defendant, that he acquired the interest of said John by execution and delivery of the deed, as claimed by Nathaniel Tompkins Osborn, and sworn to by William A. Clark.
The defendant, to prove his purchase of Lavina's interest, introduced a contract reading as follows:
It is claimed by complainant that neither Lavina nor her sister Arminda could write; that the paper is fabricated, and for the purposes of this suit. There is abundant evidence, however, to show that both of them could write.
It is also urged that if it was an honest document it would not bear two dates, and that all of the paper after the date "this 27th, 1848," has been written after Lavina's death, for the purpose of defeating the claim of her heirs in the premises. An inspection and careful examination of the original document on file in this court leads us to the conclusion that no portion of the paper has been fabricated. We are satisfied that it was all written with the same ink, and at the same time. Some of the writing in the body of the instrument, and the signature, are cramped and distorted for want of room. In those early days in Michigan, paper was not so plenty as now, and more economy was practiced in the use of space thereon. The paper is a narrow piece, and about all of its surface is utilized. We can detect no evidence of forgery in the signatures, and discover no signs of a portion of the writing being added at a later date, as claimed by complainant's counsel. With the great preponderance of evidence before us showing that both Lavina and Arminda could write, we must believe the document a genuine one, as alleged by the defendant.
Lavina died in 1854. Her youngest heir is therefore over 30 years of age. Eliza Ann Arms was 41 in 1885. Neither she nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial