In re Synod, 26.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1930
• Docket Number: No. 26.,26.
• Citation: 229 N.W. 402,249 Mich. 669
• Parties: In re SYNOD et ux.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

249 Mich. 669

229 N.W. 402

In re SYNOD et ux.

No. 26.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 6, 1930.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Wayne County.

Proceeding by Frank D. Hughes to punish Mike Synod and wife for contempt of court. Respondents were adjudged guilty of contempt, and they bring certiorari.

Reversed, and order adjudging respondents guilty of contempt vacated.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except McDONALD, J.Robert M. Dalton, of Detroit (Edmund E. Shepherd, of Detroit, of counsel), for petitioners.

Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for respondents.

NORTH, J.

Mr. and Mrs. Synod were adjudged guilty of contempt in the circuit court of Wayne County, and have brought the proceedings here for review by certiorari.

April 30, 1919, the Henry S. Koppin Company entered into a contract for the sale of a parcel of land in the city of Detroit to Mike Synod and Anna Synod, his wife. On February 8, 1922, they assigned their interest as vendees in this contract to Dan Ruian and wife. Mr. and Mrs. Ruian in turn, on the 17th of February, 1922, gave a subcontract to Frank D. Hughes, who later filed a bill in chancery against the Synods and the Ruians in which bill he sought to establish and confirm the validity of the assignment from the Synods to the Ruians and also to secure other relief. Mr. Hughes was successful in that litigation, and on June 28, 1924, the circuit court adjudged and decreed as follows:

‘1. To assignment of the land contract executed by the defendants, Mike Synod and Anna Synod, his wife, on the 8th day of February, 1922, is hereby declared to be binding upon them and that by virtue of said assignment, and the land contract dated February 17th, 1922, all the right, title and interest of the defendants, Mike Synod and Anna Synod, his wife, Dan Ruian and Forsina Ruian, his wife, are vested in the plaintiff, Frank D. Hughes, with full power and authority to receive the deed provided in the land contract of April 30th, 1919.

‘2. The defendants, Mike Synod and Anna Synod, his wife, and Dan Ruian and Forsina Ruian, his wife, do forthwith execute and deliver to the plaintiff, Frank D. Hughes, a quitclaim deed, conveying to the said plaintiff all their right, title and interest in and to the property described as,’ etc.

The decree also contained the usual provision for filing or recording a certified copy in the event the defendants failed to execute and deliver a quitclaim deed to the plaintiff. Such a certified copy was recorded with the register of deeds of Wayne county August 16, 1924. On June 10, 1926, which was nearly two years after the decree was taken, Mr. and Mrs. Synod obtained a deed of this property from the grantee of the original vendor, hereinafter called the vendor. In February, 1929, Mr. Hughes caused a quitclaim deed of these premises to be prepared and presented to Mr. and Mrs. Synod with a demand that they execute the same. This they refused to do. Because of such refusal, contempt proceedings were instituted in which it was urged by Mr. Hughes that, by taking a deed of the property involved from the vendor in the original contract, Mr. and Mrs. Synod had disregarded and in effect had nullified the court's decree. As noted above, that decree ‘vested’ Mr. Hughes with ‘full power and authority to receive the deed’ from the original vendor, and also ordered Mr. and Mrs. Synod to ‘forthwith execute and deliver’ to Mr. Hughes a quitclaim deed of...