McArthur v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 02 April 1895 |
| Citation | 104 Mich. 540,62 N.W. 713 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCARTHUR v. ROBINSON ET AL. |
Appeal from circuit court, Bay county, in chancery; George P. Cobb Judge.
Bill by Sarah McArthur against George J. Robinson and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Frank Emerick, for appellant.
T. A E. & J. C. Weadock and James E. Duffy, for appellees.
The bill in this case is filed to have a deed of certain lands in the county of Alpena, executed by David D. Oliver and wife to Alfred E. Hawes, and bearing date the 16th day of June, 1879 declared to be a mortgage, given as security for the repayment of a loan of $150, with interest and for leave to redeem. Complainant has succeeded to the rights of Oliver. The bill alleges that, in receiving the deed, Alfred E. Hawes acted as the agent and attorney of defendant George J. Robinson, and sets out somewhat in detail the previous relations existing between Oliver and George J. Robinson, which it is unnecessary to set forth at large in this opinion. It is sufficient to say that, at the time of the execution of this deed, certain litigation was pending in the United States circuit court for the Eastern district of Michigan, in which Oliver was complainant and George J. Robinson was one of the defendants, but in which, by an agreement between the counsel representing each, their interests were identical. In this suit there were other defendants against whom a decree was sought, and who were seeking a discharge in bankruptcy. As, by the agreement between the counsel of Robinson and Oliver, Robinson was to share in the avails of any decree which should be obtained, he, as well as Oliver, was interested in preventing the discharge in bankruptcy of his codefendants. This being the state of facts, on the 19th of May, 1879, Oliver, who then resided at Detroit, wrote to defendant George J. Robinson, at Alpena, desiring the assistance of Robinson in raising money to contest the application for the discharge in bankruptcy of Cunningham, Haynes, and Ranney, defendants in the suit in the federal court. It appears that Robinson was away from home at the time, but on his return, on the 29th of May, he answered the letter, saying, in effect, that he deemed it of the greatest importance to prevent the discharge of Cunningham, but without suggesting any means of raising money. Two days later, Robinson wrote to Alfred E. Hawes, who was then his attorney in the litigation in the federal court, as follows: "Oliver writes me in relation to Cunningham's discharge. I concur with him on the importance of holding Cunningham tight until the suit at Detroit is adjusted.
It is certainly most important. He wants me to go to Syracuse, and he wants money. Now, he has certain equitable rights in a large amount of lands in this county and adjoining counties, which have been stripped of timber and eaten up with tax claims; yet, if one had them straightened up in title, he could likely get a few hundred dollars out of them, and if Oliver would quitclaim them to you for a hundred or two hundred dollars, to be used in paying our expenses and fighting Cunningham's discharge, it would be best to do it, rather than let Cunningham get off, and, if you can't raise the money for him, I would do it myself, through friends. I write you a letter so you can show it to him, and you had better drop him a line-postal card-to 419 7th street,"-and also inclosed a letter which was intended to be shown to Oliver, and which read as follows: On the 7th of June, Hawes wrote to Robinson, saying that Oliver did not want to quitclaim his interest in the lands, but would mortgage them; and on the 8th of June Hawes wrote another letter to Robinson, in which he says: To this, defendant Robinson replied, under date of June 12th: The lists which were referred to in Hawes' letter of June 8th to Robinson appear to have been lost, and it does not very clearly appear whether the lands mentioned in the letter of June 12th, being the lands in controversy in this case, are the same as those mentioned in the bottom group referred to in the letter of Mr. Hawes, although defendant's counsel appear to assume that they were substantially identical. Oliver, however, testifies that the list contained in the letter of June 12th was taken from the three first mentioned groups, and was not identical with either.
The complainant's testimony tends to show that after the receipt of this letter of June 12th, and on the 16th of June a conveyance of the lands in question was prepared, upon an agreement that Hawes should loan to him (Oliver) $150, and accept a quitclaim deed as collateral for the loan, and that it was agreed that, when the $150 with interest should be paid, the land was to be redeeded to Oliver. He also testified that he understood at the time that Hawes represented Robinson in the transaction. His testimony is supported by the testimony of Charles F. Burton, an attorney, who testifies that at about that time he had some conversation with Mr. Robinson, not with especial reference to any particular description of the land, but with reference to the business for which he (Robinson) was giving Mr. Oliver money, and for which the deed was given, and that Mr. Robinson proposed to advance to Mr. Oliver money for that purpose, provided he could have some security for the money, and that, in order to give him security for the repayment of the money, Mr. Oliver made this deed of the land to Mr. Hawes; that Mr. Hawes was acting for Mr. Robinson; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial