Ridgley v. Roma
| Decision Date | 29 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 138.,138. |
| Citation | 276 N.W. 872,282 Mich. 682 |
| Parties | RIDGLEY et al. v. ROMA et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action in ejectment by Charles H. Ridgley and Pearl E. Ridgley against Agnes Roma and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ogemaw County; Edward A. bilitzke, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Earl R. Chapin, of West Branch (Dayton W. Closser of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
William T. Yeo, of West Branch, for appellee Agnes Roma.
David McLaughlin, of Saginaw, for appellee Frank W. Muehlenbeck.
This is an action in ejectment involving 40 acres of land in Ogemaw county, considered worthless until the recent discovery of oil. Plaintiffs claim title in fee and defendants under a claimed perfected tax title. Plaintiffs attack the validity of the tax title and defendants reply in kind. By bringing this form of action plaintiffs invoke strict rules of law in considering the titles.
Plaintiffs' recovery, if any, rests upon the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of defendants'. West Michigan Park Association v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 172 Mich. 179, 137 N.W. 799;Kushler v. Weber, 182 Mich. 224, 148 N.W. 418;Bird v. Stimson, 197 Mich. 582, 164 N.W. 438,166 N.W. 1043;Brown v. Eckel, 259 Mich. 551, 244 N.W. 160. We, therefore, first test plaintiffs' title.
In 1902, Thomas Pitts, of Wayne county, owned the land. A judgment creditors' bill was filed against Mr. Pitts in the Wayne circuit in July, 1906, and, on May 24, 1907, a receiver was appointed. Mr. Pitts died October 28, 1907, leaving a will in which Henry M. Duffield was designated executor, and on December 18, 1907, upon probate of the will, he was so appointed. The will, after specific bequests, devised to Henry M. Duffield all the rest of the estate to hold in trust in continuing the former lumber business of the testator, and in making advancements to the children, and then provided: ‘As soon as my said trustee shall have completed all active business operations in which I may be interested and paid all indebtedness connected with and arising from the same and in any event at the end of five years from the probate of this will he shall divide all of my estate between my two children Helen P. Parker and Samuel Lendall Pitts share and share alike equally and convey, transfer and deliver over to each of said children their respective shares.’
The estate was hopelessly insolvent. After the death of Mr. Pitts, the mentioned creditors' suit was revived against the executor and proceeded to a decree, granting plaintiff therein precedence over general creditors, and directed that the executor deliver to the receiver the assets of the estate, sufficient to satisfy the judgment. Upon appeal that decree was affirmed. Saginaw County Savings Bank v. Duffield, 157 Mich. 522, 122 N.W. 186,133 Am.St.Rep. 354. At that time the 40 acres of land, here involved, was considered worthless ‘cut-over’ land and was appraised in the inventory of the estate at a nominal value. In fact, 1,800 acres, of which it was a part, being valued, as a whole, at $1,000.
In compliance with the mentioned decree and order of the probate court the executor transferred to the receiver, under the creditors' bill, by deed, dated June 8, 1910, all the property of the estate. The deed contained the following: ‘Provided that upon receipt by receiver of sum found due in decree to Saginaw County Savings Bank, together with interest and costs and charges of the receivership, and proceeds remaining from sale of above described property, together with all the same not then disposed of, shall be reconveyed by said receiver to the Estate of Thomas Pitts, deceased.’
On August 4, 1910, the Wayne circuit court authorized the receiver to sell the properties. The record does not disclose a sale by the receiver of this parcel or any other action by him.
The executor made report of the mentioned transfer to the receiver and, on September 16, 1910, the probate court, upon a finding that the executor had turned over to the receiver, under the judgment creditors' bill, the property of the estate in his hands, and upon the filing of the receipt of the receiver acknowledging due payment to him of all the property and estate in the hands of the executor and due him as such receiver, ordered ‘that the said executor be and he is hereby discharged, his bond cancelled and said estate closed.’
The same date the probate court also entered the following order:
‘On reading and filing the receipts of the several persons entitled to the residue of said estate, acknowledging due payment to them of the respective amounts due them:
‘It is ordered that Henry M. Duffield, executor of the last will and testament of said deceased, be and he is hereby discharged, his bond cancelled and said estate closed.’
We are not informed as to the identity of ‘the several persons entitled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stephenson v. Golden
-
Pontiac Tp. v. Featherstone
...ejectment proceeding the plaintiff must rely upon the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of defendant's title. Ridgley v. Roma, 282 Mich. 682, 276 N.W. 872.' At the time the plat was recorded there was in effect an act to provide for the recording of town plats, to be found in 1......
-
Briggs v. Prevost
...proceedings the plaintiff must rely upon the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of defendant's title. Ridgeley v. Roma, 282 Mich. 682, 276 N. W. 872. Clearly in such case a plaintiff could not prevail if defendant had a prior valid title. It follows that the burden of proof of t......
-
Smelsey v. Safety Inv. Corp.
...proceedings the plaintiff must rely upon the strength of his own title not on the weakness of defendant's title. Ridgeley v. Roma, 282 Mich. 682, 276 N.W. 872. Clearly in such case a plaintiff could not prevail if defendant had a prior valid title. It follows that the burden of proof of the......