Schwartz v. Woodruff

• Decision Date: 23 March 1903
• Citation: 132 Mich. 513,93 N.W. 1067
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHWARTZ v. WOODRUFF.

93 N.W. 1067

132 Mich. 513

SCHWARTZ v. WOODRUFF.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 23, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Morse Rohnert Judge.

Suit by Charles Schwartz against Fremont Woodruff. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.

De Forest Paine, for appellant.

Walter E. Oxtoby (Keena & Lightner of counsel), for appellee.

CARPENTER, J.

This was a suit brought to foreclose a land contract and obtain a decree for a deficiency against defendant. The court below rendered a decree in complainant's favor. Defendant appeals, asking a reversal, because complainant only owned an undivided interest in the land in question, and because the deed of complainant's grantor was acknowledged before an interested party.

The facts are undisputed, and may be briefly stated. The contract between complainant and defendant was made October 18, 1892 and obligated complainant to deliver to defendant, on the payment of the agreed purchase price, 'a good and sufficient conveyance in fee simple, free and clear of and from all liens and incumbrances, except such as may have accrued subsequent to the date hereof by or through the acts or negligence' of defendant. At the time of the execution of said contract said complainant's title was that of a contract purchaser only, he having obtained, on May 1, 1891 his contract of sale from the owner of the land, Bishop Foley, of Detroit. Before making said purchase, complainant had a verbal understanding with Frank A. Schulte, William W Hannan, and James T. Keena that he and each of them should have an undivided one-fourth in the property in question, and the next day after said purchase he and they entered into a written contract in accordance with said understanding. By this contract each of the four became an owner of a one-fourth interest in the property, and each obligated himself to carry out the provisions of the contract between complainant and Bishop Foley. In accordance with a verbal agreement between these four, Bishop Foley executed a deed October 24, 1892, transferring the title to complainant, the acknowledgment to which was taken before and certified by Mr Keena as notary public. Defendant continued to make payments on his contract until October 10, 1901.

Before this suit was commenced, and after the agreed purchase price became due, complainant tendered defendant a deed of this land, and demanded payment of the balance due. Defendant refused to accept the conveyance and pay said balance on the sole ground that he did not have the money though he had known for two or three years that Schulte, Hannan, and Keena had an interest in the venture, and was thereby charged with notice of their actual interest in the land. Converse v. Blumrich, 14 Mich., at page 120, 90 Am. Dec. 230. If the title tendered defendant was defective on account of the assignment of an interest in the land by comp...