Palmer v. Sterling
| Decision Date | 17 June 1879 |
| Citation | 2 N.W. 24,41 Mich. 218 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | WATERMAN PALMER v. VIRGINIA STERLING and CAROLINE WILLIAMS. |
Where land is conveyed so it is, in fact, a gift, though colorably a sale, no vender's lien will attach. Actual unpaid indebtedness for purchase money is necessary to the creation of such lien.
Complainant filed his bill in this cause to enforce a vendor's lien on property alleged to have been sold by him October 7, 1874, to his daughter, the defendant Virginia Sterling, for which it is claimed she gave her note for $4,780, payable eighteen months after date, as the purchase price. Defendant Caroline Williams is charged to have become a purchaser with notice.
The record contains much testimony bearing on the family relations of the parties, which we do not think it important to discuss, as the testimony of complainant himself is conclusive against his right to this remedy.
He states, in effect, that when he conveyed this property to his daughter, Mrs. Sterling, it was not yet understood on either side to be a sale. He represents that it was done with the understanding that he should have the control and direction of the sale of the property, for his own use, during his and his wife's life-time, and that what was not disposed of should belong to the grantee. There was never any sale made or price agreed upon. The note, although dated back, was not made until sometime after the sale. He represents that it was given as "a kind of collateral" for the fulfillment of this understanding. The facts indicate that it was taken to furnish color to the transfer, as a valid sale of the land, in case any trouble should arise with creditors. The daughter claims that the deed was an unconditional gift. If complainant's statement is correct, it was an absolute gift, subject to a void parol trust in his favor, which would make its legal effect as she claimed it to be.
The decisions in this state have followed the old rules in equity, whereby a vendor who had a claim for unpaid purchase money is allowed a lien on the land sold by him for its payment, here nothing is done to waive or lose it. Sears v. Smith, 2 Mich. 246; Converse v. Blunerick, 14 Mich. 124; Mowry v. Vandling, 9 Mich. 39; Palmer, et al Appellants, 1 Doug. 422; Weare v. Linnell, 29 Mich 224.
But all the authorities rest upon the basis that the land was actually sold for an agreed consideration, payable at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. Golden
...of the promisee. Revised Statutes 1846, c. 63, 3 Comp.Laws 1929, c. 252, § 12967 et seq.; Brown v. Bronson, 35 Mich. 415;Palmer v. Sterling, 41 Mich. 218, 2 N.W. 24;Waldron v. Merrill, 154 Mich. 203, 117 N.W. 631;Longe v. Kinney, 171 Mich. 312, 137 N.W. 119;McIntyre v. McIntyre, 205 Mich. 4......
-
Robb v. Day
... ... conveyance and the purpose for which it was given. * * * ... Waterman v. Seeley, 28 Mich. 77; Brown v ... Bronson, 35 Mich. 415; Palmer v. Sterling, 41 ... Mich. 218, 2 N.W. 24; Reynolds v. Morris, 17 Ohio ... St. 510; Edgerly v. Edgerly, 112 Mass. 175 ... Upon ... ...
-
Shafter v. Huntington
...366; Groesbeck v. Seeley, 13 Mich. 345; Newton v. Sly, 15 Mich. 396; Brown v. Bronson, 35 Mich. 415; Palmer v. Sterling, 41 Mich. 220; S.C. 2 N.W. 24. At time the deed was executed to Hugh M. Shafter there was no deed or conveyance in writing subscribed by the party creating or declaring th......
-
Carney v. Carney
...366; Grosbeck v. Seeley, 13 Mich. 345; Newton v. Sly, 15 Mich. 396; Brown v. Bronson, 35 Mich. 415; Palmer v. Sterling, 41 Mich. 220; S.C. 2 N.W. 24.) Want of consideration raise a resulting trust. Jackson v. Cleveland, 15 Mich. 95; Schafter v. Huntington, supra. CHAMPLIN, J. This case come......