Peirson v. Peirson
| Decision Date | 16 July 1904 |
| Citation | 100 N.W. 457,137 Mich. 180 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEIRSON v. PEIRSON et al. |
Cross-Appeal from Circuit Court, Lenawee County, in Chancery; Guy M Chester, Judge.
Bill by Electa W. Peirson against Clemenza E. Peirson and others. From a decree for defendants, complainant and defendant Clemenza E. Peirson appeal. Reversed.
The object of the bill in this case is to restrain the foreclosure by advertisement of a mortgage for $3,900 executed by Eugene D. Peirson and his wife, the complainant on a block in the city of Hudson, to the defendant Clemenza the mother of Eugene. Complainant and her husband were married in 1881. Her father lived in Albion, N.Y. Owing to his ill treatment, they separated, and she returned to her father's home in August, 1899. Accompanying the mortgage was a note executed by Eugene to his mother. The mortgage was dated November 30, 1892, and not recorded until December 7 1899. The husband of Clemenza and the father of Eugene owned the property in question. He left a will by which he bequeathed two-fifths thereof to his wife, Clemenza, and one-fifth to each of his other children, a son, Eugene, and two daughters. Eugene subsequently bought the interests of his mother and sisters, and the mortgage in question was given to secure the amount of the purchase price due his mother. On September 5, 1896, Eugene executed a deed of this property to his wife, the complainant, which deed was recorded September 8th. It was a warranty deed against all incumbrances except three mortgages, neither of which was that of the defendant Clemenza. This deed was executed under the following circumstances: Soon after their marriage, the complainant, at the request of her husband, went to her father, and borrowed $1,000, giving her note for it. This money was loaned to Eugene. This note was renewed from year to year, and at the date of the deed amounted to $2,619.18. In 1888 complainant borrowed from her father another $1,000 for which both she and her husband gave a note. This note was renewed yearly, and at the date of the deed amounted to $1,726.02. About the time the deed was executed, complainant, at the request of Eugene, asked her father for more money. Mr. Warner, her father, went to Hudson, and it was then arranged that he would advance $550; that Eugene should execute a deed to complainant; and that his note should at the same time be surrendered, and he discharged therefrom. This was done, and complainant executed to her father notes for the sums above mentioned. Before consummating the arrangement, Mr. Warner, desiring to know the condition of the title, and after seeing the mortgagees mentioned in the deed to make an arrangement for an extension of time, told defendant Clemenza what he was about to do. She expressed her satisfaction. He asked her if she had any claim upon the property, to which she replied, 'I have not; I have been all paid off.' Relying upon this statement, the arrangement was consummated, and the deed executed. Soon after the record of this deed the creditors of Eugene filed a judgment creditors' bill against him and the complainant, charging that the deed was void as to creditors. In that suit Clemenza was a witness, and swore positively that her mortgage had been paid by Eugene. The creditors were defeated, and the deed held valid. An assignment of the mortgage was made by defendant Clemenza to defendant Wells February 5, 1900, and recorded May 31, 1900. Mr. Wells was Clemenza's brother, lived in California, and had no knowledge of the assignments. It was made without any consideration, and for the sole purpose of having the foreclosure proceedings take place in his name. Foreclosure proceedings were then commenced by advertising in a newspaper in the city of Adrian, rather than in the city of Hudson, where the parties resided. Upon learning of this, complainant promptly filed this bill. Eugene was the moving spirit in these transactions. The deposition of Clemenza was taken, and she testified that complainant and her husband induced her to falsely swear upon the hearing in the judgment creditors' suit that her mortgage was fully paid. She testified upon this hearing that no part of it had ever been paid, although nine payments of $16 each and one of $15 were indorsed upon the note. Complainant positively denied making any request to her to give such testimony. Eugene was not a witness. Clemenza admits that Eugene requested her to keep the mortgage from the record, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial