Maatta v. Kippola

• Decision Date: 25 September 1894
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MAATTA v. KIPPOLA.

60 N.W. 300

102 Mich. 116

MAATTA v. KIPPOLA.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 25, 1894

Error to circuit court, Houghton county; Jay A. Hubbell, Judge.

Summary proceedings by Jacob Maatta against August Kippola to recover possession of real estate. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

W. F. Riggs, for appellant.

A. T Streeter, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This is a summary proceeding to recover possession of real estate. The facts were agreed to on the trial before a jury in the court below as follows: For two years and upwards, prior to December 21, 1891, the defendant was a tenant at will of the Hungarian Copper Company, and occupied the lands in question as such tenant at will, and at an annual rent of $100. That during the time defendant so occupied said lands as tenant at will under the said Hungarian Copper Company, he, the defendant, built the house mentioned and described in the complaint, and that from the time he so built said house he and his family have occupied said home continuously until the present time, and that he has had or has no other home or homestead. On the 21st day of December, 1891, defendant assigned his interest in said lands by an instrument in writing, which, reciting a consideration of one dollar and other valuable considerations, proceeded: "I hereby transfer, set over, and assign to Henry Keronen all my farming rights in and to the following described lands including all dwellings, barns, and other buildings thereon with the right to enter and occupy the same, including all agricultural improvements, leases, and agreements of what kind so ever" (describing the lands). This was signed by the defendant, but not by his wife. The assignment was assented to by the landlord, and Henry Keronen paid to the landlord $200 of back rent, and thereupon Keronen moved upon the premises, and occupied said premises and a part of the dwelling mentioned in the complaint from December 21, 1891, until December 21, 1892, when he sold to complainant. This assignment was also in writing, approved by the agent of the lessor, and since its date plaintiff has paid the ground rent.

The contention of the defendant is stated in the bill of exceptions to have been "that the sale and assignment from defendant to said Henry Keronen was made without the consent and signature of the wife of said defendant, and that the said defendant and his wife had, at the time...