Laing v. McKee

• Decision Date: 28 January 1865
• Citation: 13 Mich. 124
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Peter Laing v. Robert G. McKee

13 Mich. 124

Peter Laing v. Robert G. McKee

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 28, 1865

Submitted January 4, 1865

Appeal in chancery from Clinton circuit.

The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Decree of the court reversed, and a decree entered in this court granting to complainant the relief prayed, with costs of both courts.

S. L Kilbourne, for complainant.

J. H McKee, and Hanchett & Lyon, for defendant.

Cooley J. Campbell and Christiancy, JJ. concurred. Martin, Ch. J dissenting.

OPINION

Cooley J.:

The bill of complaint in this case sets forth that complainant is the owner of a forty-acre lot in Clinton county, which, at the annual tax sales, made in October, 1858, was sold to defendant for taxes delinquent for the year 1857, amounting to one dollar forty-one cents; that complainant having a right to redeem from this sale sent the money for that purpose by one Treat to the office of the auditor-general, but that Treat, ascertaining that the sale was made to defendant, who was a neighbor of complainant, returned the money without redeeming, saying that he thought complainant could procure an assignment of the certificate of sale from defendant; that complainant called upon defendant for that purpose, who told him the certificate was then at Lansing, but he might send for and obtain it, and defendant would then assign it; that complainant sent and obtained it accordingly, and gave it to one Alvah C. Laing, with a sum of money sufficient to pay defendant the amount of his bid, together with twenty-five per cent interest thereon, and that said Alvah, in the latter part of September, 1859, took the same to defendant with a request that he should assign the certificate; that defendant said he would do so, but could not do it then, owing to the absence of an officer to take the acknowledgment, but he would make and acknowledge the assignment, and in two or three days take it to complainant, and would then receive the money for the same, together with the expenses of the acknowledgment.

The bill further states that complainant believed and relied upon this assurance, and consequently allowed the time for redemption to expire without redeeming; but defendant, after the time to redeem had expired, surrendered his certificate and obtained from the auditor-general a deed, and that he now refuses on demand to receive the amount of the bid, with twenty-five per cent interest and his costs and expenses in the premises, and convey to complainant. And the bill prays that he may be compelled to convey accordingly.

The case was heard on pleadings and proofs, and we think the evidence taken fully substantiates the material charges made by the complainant's bill. He is, therefore, entitled to the relief prayed unless the bill itself fails to make a sufficient case.

It is objected on the part of defendant that the agreement on his part was a...