Lowry v. Lyle

• Decision Date: 10 April 1924
• Docket Number: No. 156.,156.
• Citation: 226 Mich. 676,198 N.W. 245
• Parties: LOWRY et al. v. LYLE et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

226 Mich. 676

198 N.W. 245

LOWRY et al.

v.LYLE et al.

No. 156.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 10, 1924.

Error to Circuit Court, Van Buren County; L. Burget Des Voignes, Judge.

Action by William Lowry and others against Edwin A. Lyle and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. Thomas J. Cavanaugh, of Paw Paw, for appellants.

David Anderson, of Paw Paw, for appellees.

WIEST, J.

This is an action of ejectment, brought by remaindermen, to recover farm land occupied by defendants and their predecessors, under claim of title, for 33 years. Plaintiff had verdict by direction of the court with judgment thereon, and defendants prosecute review by writ of error. The facts are not in dispute.

In 1872 James Lowry, Sr., owned a farm in Van Buren county. He died November 15, 1872, leaving a will bequeathing $1,300 to Mary Roberts, his granddaughter, and constituted the bequest a lien on the farm. He divided his farm in two parts, devised one part, including the land in suit, to his son George for life, with remainder to the children of George living at the time of George's death. The other part he devised in like manner to his son James, with remainder to his children.

The will provided:

‘The above bequests to my said sons, James and George are upon the express condition that the said James shall pay my said granddaughter, Mary Roberts, six hundred and fifty dollars in seven equal annual payments and interest annually until all be paid and upon condition that the said George shall also pay my said granddaughter, Mary Roberts, six hundred and fifty dollars in seven equal annual installments and interest thereon and that all my said land shall be subject to a lien for the said thirteen hundred dollars until the same shall be paid by my said sons.’

May 6, 1874, Mary Roberts, by proper instrument duly recorded, assigned her legacy to Milo D. Matteson, who, August 3, 1882, assigned the same to Jerome Coleman. May 25, 1883, Jerome Coleman filed a bill in the Van Buren circuit to foreclose the lien given with the legacy to Mary Roberts making the life tenants and all then existing remaindermen defendants. Defendants appeared and filed a demurrer. The demurrer was sustained, leave to amend granted, amendment made, new demurrer filed and overruled, guardian ad litem appointed for infant defendants, and answer filed by their guardian ad litem. At that time (December 17, 1884) the remainderman numbered eight, all infants. The case was heard and decree entered, reciting the legacy and lien under the will to Mary Roberts on the whole farm, found the amount due, declared the lien, allowed payment on or before March 1, 1885, and in default thereof ordered a sale by a circuit court commissioner to satisfy the lien; sale to be in two parcels, and that the life tenants and their children born before the date of the decree, or born thereafter, be forever barred from all ‘equity of redemption, right, and interest in the said land under the aforesaid will of said James Lowry, deceased.’

When the bill was filed, George Lowry had four children, all infants, but before the hearing he had another daughter born, and James Lowry had another son born.

The sale under decree took place June 1, 1886; Sela N. Thomas purchased, and June 15, 1886, the sale having been confirmed by the court, he received a commissioner's deed. May 29, 1886, three days before the sale, the life tenants, George and James Lowry, and as next friends for their respective children, the remaindermen, including the two born during the pendency of the lien foreclosure suit, filed a bill in the Van Buren circuit attacking the validity of the lien foreclosure decree, and asked that sale thereunder be enjoined. Hearing was had upon an order to show cause, an injunction was denied, and prosecution of the case there ended.

When Sela N. Thomas purchased at the sale under decree, he was administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Lowry, Sr., deceased. July 20, 1886, Thomas deeded the land in suit to George and Sarah A. Lowry, George being the former life tenant and Sarah being his wife. The same day, and probably to pay Thomas, George, and Sarah, A. Lowry gave Alvin and Theckla A. Bennett a mortgage for $700 on the premises. This mortgage was foreclosed, and a sheriff's deed given the Bennetts March 1, 1888, and they, on January 2, 1889, quitclaimed to John Lyle, but on January 29, 1889, redemption was made. December 29, 1888, George Lowry and his wife, Sarah, by warranty deed, conveyed the land in suit to John Lyle. The title of defendants comes in an unbroken line from John Lyle. George Lowry died May 20, 1915.

The circuit judge decided that defendants acquired no title by adverse possession; that right to possession did not accrue to the remaindermen until the death of their father, the life tenant, and therefore this suit was seasonably commenced. Plaintiffs are the remaindermen designated by class in the will of their grandfather, and plaintiff William at the time of the hearing was 49 years of age, Claude 40, May 44, Bertha 38, and Ethel 31. Bud Evans claims rights through Lillie B. Evans, formerly Lillie B. Lowry, who survived her father, but died before suit, at the age of 46. The learned circuit judge, while of the opinion that Sela N. Thomas acquired a good title, yet held that, when he deeded to George Lowry, it thereby reinstated the life estate and the remainder as provided in the will.

At the trial defendants relied upon their chain of title, and claimed adverse possession for over 30 years. Defendants insist their title should be declared good as against plaintiffs, assert good faith, plead their equities, and also urge laches on the part of plaintiffs. Under the terms of the will George Lowry was a life tenant of the premises in suit and obligated to pay $650 of the bequest to Mary Roberts. If the chancery sale to Thomas cut off the life estate and the estate in remainder, and a deed from Thomas to a stranger would have passed good title, what was the effect of the deed from Thomas to George and Sarah A. Lowry? The rule preventing a life tenant from changing his estate to one in fee by proceedings growing out of his own default is well settled. The disseizin of the life tenant and the remaindermen, under the lien foreclosure proceedings, went for naught when the life tenant procured a deed from Thomas, for he thereby restored the life estate and the estate in remainder. Bowen v. Brogan, 119 Mich. 218, 77 N. W. 942, 75 Am. St. Rep. 387;Lewis v. Wright, 148 Mich. 290, 111 N. W. 751;McCall v. McCall, 159 Mich. 144, 123 N. W. 550; 21 C. J. 942.

The status quo was restored by the deed from Thomas to George and Sarah A. Lowry, and from...