Jenness v. Smith

• Decision Date: 06 January 1887
• Citation: 64 Mich. 91,30 N.W. 909
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: JENNESS and others v. SMITH.

30 N.W. 909

64 Mich. 91

JENNESS and others v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 6, 1887

Appeal from Lapeer. In chancery.

Farrand & Jenks, (J.B. Moore, of counsel,) for defendant.

SHERWOOD J.

These complainants were all defendants in separate suits against each in ejectment, wherein the plaintiff was the defendant Gertrude Smith, and the object of the bill in this case is to enjoin Mrs. Smith from prosecuting those three ejectment suits, and to quiet the title to the property therein in dispute.

The defendant demurred to the complainants' bill, alleging the following grounds therefor: "That it appears by the said bill that the same is exhibited by the complainant Isaac N. Jenness, and the several other persons therein named as complainants thereto, for distinct matters and causes, in several whereof, as appears by the said bill, the said complainants are not in any manner in common or jointly interested or concerned, and that the bill is multifarious that the said complainants have not, in and by their said bill, made or stated such a case as entitles them in a court of equity to any relief from or against this defendant touching the matters contained in said bill, or any of such matters."

The cause was heard before Judge STICKNEY in the Lapeer circuit, where the demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed. The allegations of the bill are substantially the same as those in Winslow v. Smith, ante, 905 (decided at the present term of this court,) with the following additions, viz.: All the lands referred to in Winslow v. Smith were sold prior to January 3, 1878. Up to that time Allen Fish and I.N. Jenness, as survivors of I.N Jenness & Co., had continued the business for the purpose of closing it up, believing that, in so doing, they could best subserve the interests of all concerned. At that date Jenness learned for the first time that Allen and Henry Fish had mortgaged their two-third interest in the partnership real estate of I.N. Jenness & Co. in 1871 for $40,000, which mortgage had never been recorded, and that there was still due on said mortgage about $10,000. There was also due to John L. Woods, on a mortgage given by A. & H. Fish on their interest in the same lands, $25,000; so that the interest of A. & H. Fish in this partnership real estate was incumbered by mortgages to the amount of $35,000. At this time the firm of I.N. Jenness & Co. owed I.N. Jenness $20,000, and other...