Root v. King

• Decision Date: 06 May 1892
• Citation: 91 Mich. 488,51 N.W. 1118
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ROOT v. KING et al.

51 N.W. 1118

91 Mich. 488

ROOT v. KING et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 6, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Bay county, in chancery; GEORGE P. COBB Judge.

Suit to set aside a foreclosure sale and to foreclose a mortgage by Albert H. Root against John King, Edward H. Beebe, Marion M Beebe, T. W. Smith, and Noah Farrington. Decree for complainant. Defendant King appeals. Affirmed.

James Van Kleeck, for appellant.

T A. E. & J. C. Weadock, for appellee.

GRANT, J.

Defendant Beebe and wife, being the owners of lots 11 and 12, executed a mortgage upon them to Laura A. Root for $900. She foreclosed the mortgage by advertisement, and the sale took place June 6, 1889. Complainant, as her agent, attended the sale, and bid in the lots for $500 each. After the sale she deeded the premises to complainant. The lots are situated at the corner of Fremont and Stanton streets. There are two houses upon them, fronting Fremont street. At the sale complainant understood that the lots ran north and south, and fronted on Fremont street; but in fact they ran east and west, and fronted on Stanton street. Both the houses were therefore on lot 12, and were built very close to the north line of lot 11. Lot 12, with the houses thereon, was worth about $1,000, while lot 11 was in fact worth only about $100. Just before the time for redemption had expired, defendant King obtained a quitclaim deed of the premises from the grantee of Beebe. He had for some time been the agent for his grantor. He paid nothing for the land, and took the deed with the full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances of the sale, and with the intention to redeem only from the sale of lot 12, upon which he tendered complainant the amount bid with interest. On ascertaining the mistake he had made in the situation of these lots, complainant filed the bill in this cause to set aside the former sale and to foreclose the mortgage. Decree was entered in the court below in favor of complainant, and defendant King appeals.

Defendant insists that there was no mutual mistake; that the mistake was that of complainant alone, and therefore he cannot recover. The mistake was not in the relative value of the lots, but in their situation, and, under the circumstances we do not think the complainant should suffer. Had he known the situation, and mistaken the value, the defendant's position would undoubtedly be correct. Defendant King stands in no better...