Meech v. Lee
| Decision Date | 01 August 1890 |
| Citation | 46 N.W. 383,82 Mich. 274 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | MEECH v. LEE et al. |
Appeal from circuit court, Berrien county, in chancery; THOMAS O'HARA, Judge.
Where testimony is taken in open court in a chancery suit, the judge has no authority to absolutely reject testimony, unless of a nature so scandalous as not to be proper to appear in the record of the proceedings. If testimony is forced into a case which is evidently irrelevant and immaterial, a motion may be made to expunge it, and the court may order it expunged, with costs against the solicitor insisting on its being taken; but it must be returned on appeal, in order that the appellate court may pass on the correctness of the ruling.
Frances E. Meech filed her bill of complaint against Philo D. Beckwith to compel the delivery up and cancellation of two notes and mortgages which she claims were procured from her under circumstances which amounted to duress, and which should also be declared void on grounds of public policy. She alleges that she is the widow of Stephen H. Meech, who died several years ago; that she is 69 years of age, and is infirm from age; that her husband, at the time of his death, was the owner and seised of certain real estate, a portion of which constituted the family homestead; that she has been endowed in a part thereof during her life, and resides upon the same that, aside from her interest in such lands, she has no means of support; that she has a son named Marquis H. Meech, who is married, and resides with her upon the homestead. She further stated that "on or about March 27, 1887, one Fred E Lee, who, she is informed and believes, is the son-in-law of Philo D. Beckwith, who is named as mortgagee in each of the mortgages hereinafter mentioned, and another person, whose name she does not know, but who, she was told by the said Fred E. Lee, was a sheriff, came to her residence with the said Lee, representing to her that he came there as the agent of the said Philo D. Beckwith; that her son Marquis H. Meech had borrowed and procured of the said Philo D. Beckwith the sum of $2,000, to secure the payment of which he had given to said Beckwith a mortgage on his portion of the lands inherited as above stated; that said Lee further stated to her that in order to procure such moneys, he, the said Marquis, had falsely represented to said Beckwith that the lands which he proposed to give as security for such sum were free and clear from all incumbrances; that, in order further to convince said Beckwith that said lands were free and clear of incumbrance, he produced and exhibited and gave to said Beckwith an abstract of title to said lands from the firm of Dix & Wilkinson, abstractors in Berrien county which abstract, as exhibited and given to the said Beckwith did show that the said Marquis H. Meech had an unincumbered title to the land mortgaged; that the same was not a true abstract, nor such a one as had been furnished by the said title abstractors, but had been changed and mutilated by him, said Marquis, so as not to show several previous mortgages for large amounts upon the same premises; that said abstract had been so changed and mutilated by the said Marquis for the purpose of falsely obtaining such money of the sum of $2,000 from the said Beckwith; and that by means of such false pretensions the said Beckwith had advanced him, the said Marquis, the said sum of $2,000, taking as security a mortgage on such lands, believing such representations to be true, and that the same were not incumbered, whereas in fact and in truth they were incumbered by mortgages previously given by the said Marquis to a large amount, and that the security of the said Philo D. Beckwith, by reason thereof, was comparatively worthless; that the said Lee further represented to her that by such proceeding and false pretenses her son, the said Marquis H. Meech, had committed a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment in the state-prison; and that, unless she would join in a mortgage of her lands to said Beckwith to secure the payment of such sum as the said Beckwith would have to advance to pay off such prior incumbrances on the lands of said Marquis, the said Beckwith would cause her said son to be prosecuted for such offense. Complainant says that she was very reluctant to mortgage her lands for such or any purpose, and at first refused so to do; that the said Lee then told her the sheriff was there with him with the papers all ready to arrest said Marquis; that the said Lee and the person whom he said was a sheriff remained until long after dark. The complainant says that the wife of the said Marquis was then living with your oratrix, and was sick and about to be delivered of a child, and had been informed of the trouble, and was suffering and crying bitterly. And complainant says that finally, and at a late hour in the evening of the said 14th of March, 1887, she reluctantly signed a mortgage of her lands to the said Philo D. Beckwith, wherein and whereby she was made to agree to pay to the said Beckwith, 30 days after such date, the sum of $1,700, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum, and signed also a note for such sum payable to said Beckwith 30 days after date, such lands being described in such mortgage as follows: Such mortgage purported to be duly executed, and was delivered to the said Lee, as agent for the said Beckwith, and was afterwards recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Berrien county, Mich., March 15, 1887, in Liber 40 of Mortgages, on page 9. Complainant further says that on or about the 24th day of March, 1887, the said Lee, as agent for the said Beckwith, again came to her residence, and stated that since the execution of the said mortgage dated March 14, 1887, the said Beckwith had discovered that the sum, which he was compelled to pay to redeem the prior incumbrances on the said mortgaged lands of said Marquis, was much greater than $1,700, and amounted to the sum of $2,440, or thereabouts, and insisted that the complainant should make another or new mortgage for such sum of $2,440; and again the said Lee threatened this complainant that unless she would give such mortgage, the said Beckwith would immediately cause the arrest of said Marquis, but that if she would sign the same, the said offense of said Marquis would be condoned, and no prosecution had. Complainant says that at the time she was sick, and nearly worn out with trouble and nursing her sick daughter-in-law, and that under such threats and coercion she did join in another mortgage on March 24, 1887, to the said Philo D.
Beck with, for the sum of $2,440, to be paid on or before 10 years from date, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum, payable annually; the lands embraced in said mortgage being described as follows: Such mortgage purports to be properly executed by your oratrix, and was taken by the said Lee, and delivered to the said Beckwith, as your oratrix is informed and believes, and was subsequently recorded in the office of the register of deeds, Berrien county, Mich., April 5, 1887, in Liber 36 of Mortgages, page 377. And your oratrix further shows that she never received any consideration whatever for the giving of either of said mortgages, and that she had no reason for giving either of them other than she has stated. She further says and charges that she only signed such mortgages and the notes accompanying the same through fear and duress, and was unduly harassed and overpersuaded into making the same; and that for such reasons, each of such mortgages, so far as she is concerned, or is a party thereto, is a fraud upon her, and is void. And she further says that the only consideration for such mortgages, or either of them, so far as she is concerned, was an agreement on the part of said Beckwith that if she would make the same he would not prosecute the said Marquis, her son, for the said alleged offense. And complainant says that such agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial