Secor v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 16 July 1897 |
| Citation | 72 N.W. 9,114 Mich. 37 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SECOR ET AL. v. PATTERSON. |
Appeal from circuit court, Gratiot county, in chancery; Sherman B Daboll, Judge.
Bill by Charles K. Secor and another against Anna L. Patterson to redeem land sold under foreclosure proceedings by advertisement and for other relief. From a decree allowing redemption on certain terms, complainants appeal. Affirmed.
James H. Pound and S.W. Stewart, for appellants.
John H Powell, for appellee.
October 8, 1892, complainants made a mortgage to defendant, in which the consideration was stated to be $2,500. February 25, 1893 there was paid upon this mortgage $500. Foreclosure proceedings were afterwards commenced by the mortgagee by advertisement. February 21, 1894, the property was bid in by the mortgagee for the sum of $1,715. February 2, 1895, complainants filed this bill, and asked to have the foreclosure proceedings set aside for irregularities, and asked for an accounting to determine the amount due, and for leave to pay the amount found due upon said mortgage. In the bill the complainants averred they "had offered to redeem the said mortgaged premises by paying the amount actually due upon said mortgage, and costs," and renewed the offer in the bill of complaint. It was the claim of the complainants that, while the mortgage was given for $2,500, but $2,000 was in fact paid, and that the mortgage was usurious, and that there was due upon it only the sum of $1,500. The trial judge, August 17, 1896, made a decree in which he found that the mortgage was usurious, and decreed that complainants be allowed to redeem the premises "upon the payment, and that they do so pay, within sixty days of the date of this decree, into this court, to abide the further order of the court as to its distribution," the amount for which the land was sold, and in default of payment it was decreed that the foreclosure sale stand, and complainants' bill be dismissed. Complainants appeal from this decree, assigning a good many errors. Inasmuch as this is a bill to redeem, in which they offer to pay what is due upon the mortgage, it is not necessary, in any view of the case, to discuss many of the assignments.
The testimony in the case is very conflicting, and it cannot all be harmonized. We think, however, it appears by a preponderance of the testimony that, for some months prior to the giving of this mortgage, the complainant Charles K Secor, who had a power of attorney at that time to act for his wife and to sign her name, was in straitened circumstances. He had for some weeks been endeavoring to obtain a loan of $2,000 upon real estate, most of which was at Sickels in Gratiot county. The evidence discloses that he had said to several persons, if they would get $2,000 for him, he would pay $500 commission to the person procuring the loan. He at that time was engaged in building a number of houses, and it was important that he should have this amount of money to pay for labor and material. He stated to parties that, if he could get that amount of money, it would save him a loss of $20,000. It also appears from the testimony that he made this offer to one John H. Powell, a lawyer and broker living in Detroit. Mr. Powell made several efforts to find the money without succeeding. The security offered was, in the main, away from Detroit. Capitalists in that city did not care for the loan. Mr. Powell had done business for the defendant, and knew that she sometimes had money, and he brought about an interview between Mr. Secor and the defendant, which resulted in the defendant's agreeing to furnish complainant $2,000. The complainant insists the arrangement was made at the house of the defendant, and that he was to pay her $2,500 and interest for $2,000. She insists that the arrangement was made in Mr. Powell's office, and that she was to furnish $2,000, if the security was good, for which she was to receive $2,000 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial