Schuffert v. Grote

• Decision Date: 21 December 1891
• Citation: 88 Mich. 650,50 N.W. 657
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHUFFERT v. GROTE.

50 N.W. 657

88 Mich. 650

SCHUFFERT v. GROTE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 21, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county, in chancery; CORNELIUS J REILLY, Judge.

Bill by Charles Schuffert against Clara Grote to set aside a deed. The bill was dismissed, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

E S. Clarkson, for appellant.

James H. Pound, for appellee

GRANT J

The bill in this case is filed to set aside a deed of the lands in controversy, executed by complainant's father to defendant, and to confirm the title in said lands to himself. His claim is that his father executed a deed to him May 1 1888; that he gave it back to his father at the same time, telling him to keep it, as he did not desire to take actual possession of the property until after his father's death; that his father, on August 21, 1889 executed a deed of this same land to the defendant; that defendant knew of the former deed to complainant, and therefore cannot be considered a bona fide purchaser. Defendant answers this claim by admitting that such a deed was drawn up to complainant, intended only as a testamentary disposition, subject to revocation, and not to take effect antil after the father's death; that it was revoked and destroyed by his father,-was never delivered; that she purchased without notice, and for a valuable consideration. The case was tried in open court, and a decree rendered dismissing the bill. All the testimony of the complainant as to the execution of the deed and as to what took place between him and his father is excluded by the statute, because the facts testified to were equally in the knowledge of the deceased. The only competent evidence of the execution of the deed is that of those who were present, aside from complainant. These were two who signed it as witnesses, and one of whom drew it. They testified that the deed was signed, acknowledged, witnessed, handed to complainant, and by him immediately handed back to his father. One of these did not know what was said at the time. The other testified that the father said that he "calculated to deed that property to Charles, that his son Gus had had his share, so that there would be no trouble after he was dead; that the father said he would not like to see the deed go on record until after he was dead; and that Charles said that he need not be afraid, the deed should go on record, and that he could keep it himself." This is all the evidence showing a...