McCammon v. Detroit, L. & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 December 1894
• Citation: 103 Mich. 104,61 N.W. 273
• Parties: MCCAMMON ET AL. v. DETROIT, L. & N. R. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

61 N.W. 273

103 Mich. 104

MCCAMMON ET AL. v. DETROIT, L. & N. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 18, 1894

Error to circuit court, Ingham county; Rollin H. Person, Judge.

Ejectment by Melvina R. McCammon and others against the Detroit Lansing & Northern Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

M. V. & R. A. Montgomery, for appellant.

Cahill & Ostrander, for appellees.

GRANT J.

After the decision in 66 Mich. 442, 33 N.W. 728, defendant took a new trial under the statute, at which the plaintiffs again recovered judgment. In the chain of title shown by the plaintiffs upon the trial, the record of two deeds was introduced, to each of which the defendant objected, upon the ground that the deeds were not properly certified to entitle them to record. The original deed executed by the sheriff of Ingham county upon a foreclosure sale by advertisement was also introduced, under objection and exception. The defendant introduced no evidence, and the court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs. Only one error is assigned, viz. that the court erred in directing a verdict. The correctness of this ruling depends entirely upon the correctness of the ruling admitting these deeds. No error is assigned upon the admission of the testimony. We think counsel should have assigned error upon the rulings of the court admitting the evidence. Johnson v. Ballou, 25 Mich. 460; Alberts v. Village of Vernon, 96 Mich. 549, 55 N.W 1022; Hecock v. Van Dusen, 96 Mich. 573, 55 N.W 1024. We are, however, inclined, under the circumstances of this case, to dispose of it upon the merits.

Of the first two deeds above mentioned, one was executed in the state of New York and the other in Connecticut. Defendant's counsel suggest, rather than insist, that they were inadmissible, under Brown v. Cady, 11 Mich. 535. They were executed and recorded in 1839. The certificates attached thereto bear date, respectively July 1 and July 12, 1839. The objection is that they do not state that the deeds were executed according to the laws of these states. This was not required by the registry law then in force. Laws 1839, Act No. 115, � 34. This law only required the certificate to state that "the officer taking the acknowledgment is such officer as by his certificate of acknowledgment he purports to be, and that he is duly commissioned and qualified."

The objections to the sheriff's deed are as follows "(1) The notice of sale did not state at what particular place the sale would be made. (2) It did not state where the assignment of the mortgage was recorded. (3) It did not assert that the sale would be made to the highest bidder. (4) There is no proof that any showing was furnished the sheriff prior to or at the time of the sale that the notice of sale had ever been published at all. (5) There is no proof that the premises were offered for sale, bid upon, or struck off to the highest bidder. (6) There is no proof that the sheriff's deed was 'forthwith' deposited with the register of deeds." The notice of sale stated that it would take place at the courthouse in the village of Mason, Ingham county. This description of the place was sufficient. The notice contained all the requirements of the statute. Comp. Laws 1871, � 6915. ...