Scriven v. Moote

• Decision Date: 23 January 1877
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: John Scriven v. William H. Moote

36 Mich. 64

John Scriven v. William H. Moote

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 23, 1877

Heard January 19, 1877

Error to Clinton Circuit.

This is replevin brought by Scriven for some wheat which was growing on premises before owned and then occupied by Moote, when Scriven purchased the premises on a chancery foreclosure sale, through which the latter claims to have derived title to the crop. Scriven held title to the lands before the foreclosure sale, through an execution sale, and Moote claimed to have had an oral arrangement with him prior to such sale whereby he was to reconvey his title to Moote on repayment of his advances and interest; and after the foreclosure sale he filed a bill to redeem. This bill came before this court on appeal, and is reported in 33 Mich., at page 500, where it was held there was no sufficient evidence of any bargain at all, even a parol one, for a reconveyance that whatever may have been the state of things before, the chancery sale cut off all previous equities, and that Scriven had a right to buy at such sale and to hold the lands the same as any other person.

Pending the bill to redeem, Moote was required, as a condition to the granting of an injunction in his favor against proceedings by Scriven to obtain possession under his foreclosure title, to give bond to prosecute his bill to redeem to final decree and if the decree should be adverse, to pay a fair rental value for the premises, and to pay all taxes and all legal costs, and not to commit waste. This is the bond of July 7 1874, referred to in the opinion of the court. The verdict and judgment below were for defendant, and plaintiff brought error.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.

O. L. Spaulding, for plaintiff in error.

II. Walbridge and J. O. Selden, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Marston, J.:

At the time this case was argued and submitted, my impressions were that Moote might, under his oral arrangement with Scriven, made previous to the foreclosure sale in April, 1874, have some claim to the wheat in question, sowed under such arrangement and previous to such sale. An examination of the record, and of the decision of this court, in Moote v. Scriven, 33 Mich. 500, upon the validity and effect of such oral agreements and of the sale of April, 1874, convinces me that defendant can have no such claim.

In the case referred to, it was held that there was not only no...