Linsley v. Sinclair
| Decision Date | 03 April 1872 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Russell Linsley v. Robert P. Sinclair and others |
Heard January 10, 1872
Appeal in chancery from Kent circuit.
This bill was filed by Russell Linsley against Robert P. Sinclair Jane S. Hull and Thomas McConnell. The defendants Hull and Sinclair answered, and the bill was taken as confessed by said McConnell. Proofs were taken, and on the hearing a decree was rendered for complainant, from which defendant Sinclair appeals.
Decree of the circuit court affirmed with costs.
Jacob Ferris, for complainant.
J. W Ransom, for defendant Sinclair.
The case made by the bill in this suit is the following: A man of limited means and evidently without experience in business matters, having purchased a piece of land, the title to which proves to be defective of record, applies to an attorney who is in the habit of bidding at tax sales to bid the same in for him as his agent, at the sale thereof, for delinquent taxes, by way of strengthening his title. The attorney consents, and the land is so bid in for two years. The attorney then suggests that subsequent purchases had better be made in his own name, in order that when he deeds over to his employer, the latter will have an apparent title from an additional source. This the principal assents to, and several such purchases are made, the employer furnishing the means. Two outstanding claims to the land are also bought in by the attorney in his own name, at nominal prices, on the same suggestion, and under the same arrangement. After by these means obtaining an apparent title to the land, the attorney asserts a complete right in himself, repudiates and denies the arrangement and sells the land. The bill is filed against him and his vendee to establish a trust in favor of complainant, who is the assignee of the attorney's employer, and to compel a conveyance of the land in fulfillment of the original understanding.
The case was heard in the court below on bill, answer and proofs, and a decree entered as prayed. From this decree the principal defendant has appealed.
On examination of the record, we think the court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant procured the title to the land in question for the fraudulent purpose of appropriating the same to his own use in violation of the confidence reposed in him. The land, therefore, in equity, belongs to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. Golden
...enactment might not be left to implication.' Lewin on Trusts, 13th Ed., p. 206. The statute of frauds is no defense to fraud. Linsley v. Sinclair, 24 Mich. 380;McCreary v. McCreary, 90 Mich. 478, 51 N.W. 545;Connolly v. Keating, 102 Mich. 1, 60 N.W. 289;Backus v. Cowley, 162 Mich. 585, 127 ......
-
Huxley v. Rice
... ... Sears, 6 ... Ad. & El., 469; Smith's Lead. Cas., 479; Converse ... v. Blumrich, 14 Mich. 109; Voorhees v ... Olmstead, 3 Hun 744; Linsley v. Sinclair, 24 ... Mich. 380. Parol evidence is admissible in cases of fraud, ... accident and mistake to show that a conveyance absolute on ... ...
-
Smith v. Smith
...him.’ See, also, McCreary v. McCreary, 90 Mich. 478, 51 N. W. 545;Connolly v. Keating, 102 Mich. 1, 60 N. W. 289;Linsley v. Sinclair, 24 Mich. 380;Judd v. Judd, 192 Mich. 198, 158 N. W. 948,160 N. W. 548. The plaintiff having paid the consideration, and the title having been taken in the na......
-
Munch v. Shabel
...for complainant and appellee, to the point that defendant was fraudulently seeking to detain an equity from complainant, cited Linsley v. Sinclair 24 Mich. 380. Beckwith for defendant and appellant. When a complainant, by filing replication, has elected his ground of suit, he cannot, withou......