Shotwell v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 07 October 1874
• Citation: 30 Mich. 179
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Daniel L. Shotwell v. Charles A. Harrison

30 Mich. 179

Daniel L. Shotwell v. Charles A. Harrison

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 7, 1874

Heard July 9, 1874

Error to Van Buren Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Richards & Barnum and E. Bacon, for plaintiff in error.

George W. Lawton, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Cooley J.:

The controversy in this case relates to lands in Van Buren county, originally taken up by Thomas B. Millard, by whom two deeds have been given to different parties. The first was given August 15, 1837, to Horatio N. Monroe, under whom Harrison claims. This was not recorded in Van Buren county until February 25, 1868, throgh it was recorded in Barry county, where some lands covered by it were situated, soon after its execution. The second was made January 4, 1865, to Thomas Silliman, and was duly recorded the next day. Shotwell claims under this, through intermediate conveyances to Mary Conway and David Bacon, successively. The judge, who tried the case without a jury, found, as facts, that S. T. Conway the husband of Mary Conway, and who also joined with her in a deed to Shotwell, negotiated for his own advantage and purposes the conveyances from Millard to Silliman, from Silliman to Mary Conway, from Mary Conway to Bacon, and from Bacon to Shotwell, and that he had full notice of the deed from Millard to Monroe; that neither Silliman, Mary Conway, nor Bacon, was a bona fide purchaser, and that Shotwell had actual notice of the deed from Millard to Monroe, long before he purchased the lands, and consequently was not a purchaser in good faith. In the record, as returned here, there is evidence in support of each of these findings, and we are therefore concluded by them. It is immaterial to the case in error whether we should have reached the same conclusion on the evidence or not; we are at liberty to review the case on questions of law only, and cannot substitute our judgment on the facts for that of the circuit judge.

It is urged by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that notice to him of a previous conveyance by Millard could only put him to the necessity of an examination of the record, and if he found the notice unsupported by the record, he was at liberty to disregard it. This position is supposed to receive support from the case of Barnard v. Campau, 29 Mich. 162. The case is not in point. The notice there was, that certain lands had been levied upon, but a reference to the notice of...