Jones v. Tyler

• Decision Date: 21 May 1859
• Citation: 6 Mich. 364
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Emily Jones and others v. Comfort Tyler and others

6 Mich. 364

Emily Jones and others v. Comfort Tyler and others

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 21, 1859

Submitted May 19, 1859 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Appeal from St. Joseph Circuit in chancery.

The bill of complaint avers: That one Job Tyler, in 1841 or 1842 in consideration of love and affection, gave his son, De Witt C. Tyler, in fee, certain premises described therein: that pursuant to said gift, De Witt went into possession of the premises, and made large improvements thereon, and finally died in possession thereof in the year 1850, leaving the complainants his widow and heir-at-law; that Job Tyler is since deceased; that said Job Tyler frequently promised to execute, and intended to execute, a deed of said premises to De Witt, and permitted said De Witt to make improvements thereon under an agreement that he would execute to him such deed; that defendant Asa Bennett has been appointed administrator on the estate of Job Tyler, and the other defendants, except Hamden A. Hecox, who claims some interest in the premises as mortgagee of Job Tyler, are the widow and heirs-at-law of said Job. And the bill prays that defendants be decreed to release and convey to complainant all their interests in said premises.

Bennett the administrator of Job Tyler, answered the bill, denying the alleged gift, and claiming that the improvements made by De Witt Tyler upon the premises in question were made for and at the expense of said Job Tyler. Bennett subsequently died, and an administrator de bonis non being appointed, was substituted as defendant in his stead. Two of the other defendants were infants, and answered by their guardian ad litem, and the bill was taken as confessed by the others.

On the hearing in the court below, the court dismissed the bill, and complainants appealed.

The following is the substance of the testimony on behalf of complainant:

Charles L. Miller knew De Witt C. and Job Tyler in their life time; knows the premises that De Witt C. Tyler occupied in his life time; knew him in the occupation of the premises, two or three years continuously, before his death. The premises were located near Job Tyler's residence, a short distance southeast, on the opposite side of the road. De Witt occupied eighty acres of land. He was in debt to me, and a short time before his death, Job Tyler told me that he (Job) had given De Witt the land which he occupied, and that was all he could do for him. These remarks were made by Job in a conversation with him by me, in relation to De Witt C. Tyler being able to pay his debts, at the public house in Centerville. De Witt, at the time of this conversation, occupied the land above spoken of. I always had the impression that De Witt owned the land, and credited him on the strength of it.

Charles F. Dickinson knows the premises occupied by De Witt before his death; they are the same spoken of by Miller. Knew De Witt in possession of those premises for six or seven years immediately preceding his death. The land was wild and unbroken when he moved on to it. De Witt built the log house now upon the premises. Should think over forty acres of said land had been broken up and cultivated since he went on to it. De Witt managed and controlled the improvement of the premises. There is a tolerable good fence around the outside of said land; cross fences are not much, if any. There is a small orchard, peach trees and cherry trees, on the premises. Let De Witt have a team to break up a part of said premises, and he worked for witness to pay for the use of the team; he also had cattle of witness to draw brick for a chimney to the house on the premises. He paid for the use of the cattle for that job. Job Tyler, all this time, occupied premises of his own, near by.

At the time De Witt lived upon the premises, witness supposed he owned them--his father told witness he did. At the time De Witt had team of witness, his father helped him in breaking said land--some three or four acres; that being all that was done when he had the team. He had one or two yoke of oxen his father had, witness thinks, two yoke, and the oxen of witness, and one other yoke, constituted the breaking team. Job and De Witt exchanged work frequently. There has been no improvement on said land since De Witt's death. Was at De Witt's house when he was at work chinking it up, and at work about the roof. The house was raised by the neighbors. De Witt asked...