Simon v. Brown
| Decision Date | 03 April 1878 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Burkhard Simon v. Robert Brown, Henry Leik and Theodore Droste |
Submitted February 1, 1878
Appeal from Clinton.
Bill to compel the conveyance of title. Defendant Droste appeals.
Decree affirmed with costs.
Spaulding & Cranson for complainant.
Bartow & Fedewa for defendants.
Simon brings his bill of complaint to obtain a title to the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 30, of town six north of range four west in Clinton county.
Brown the original owner, then and now living in Monroe county, New York, sold the east half of the southeast quarter of section 30 to one Engelbert Esch, in the early part of the year 1867 by written contract dated March 15, 1867, for $ 850, payable $ 150 down and the balance, as alleged in the answer, to be paid in two annual installments. Brown having obtained the possession of the contract, and refusing to produce it, the precise terms of it are not shown, but they are not now very material.
On the 26th of January, 1869, Esch sold the north forty acres to complainant by warranty deed for $ 575, of which $ 450 was to be paid on the contract of Esch. This was paid to Joseph Platte, an agent of Brown, partly by direct payment, and partly by payment to Andrew Webber by arrangement with Platte. Platte received full payment of all the money due to Brown in this way.
Brown claims Platte was not his agent for receiving money. The testimony shows clearly that while Platte probably deceived him as to the amounts of money received, Brown knew that he was collecting money on the contracts and allowed him to keep it as a loan, and did not object to his collecting it. The agency is clear.
In May 1873, complainant procured a letter to be written to Brown, enclosing the deed from Esch to complainant, and asking what further claims, if any, Brown had on the land. To this Brown made no reply, although he received it. Several months thereafter complainant had another letter sent asking similar information, and a return of the deed. Of this Brown took no notice, and kept the deed.
In the beginning of 1874 one Hengsbach, who knew all about complainant's rights and had helped him in his original purchase, entered into an arrangement with Brown for getting title to the entire Esch purchase. Esch was dead, and Platte had gone away, as Brown claims, without paying him. There is some mystery about the facts, but it would seem that Brown agreed, if the Esch contract could be procured and got out of the way, to sell the property to Hengsbach for the first contract price. Proofs were given of Esch's death, and possession was in some way obtained of Esch's copy of the contract which was pet in Brown's hands. Thereupon, on the payment or pretended payment of $ 850, Brown made a conveyance, dated in January but executed in May, 1874, to one Anton Pulte of the entire eighty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Century Savings Bank
...(22 L.Ed. 144); Martin v. Webb, 110 U.S. 7 (3 S.Ct. 428, 28 L.Ed. 49); State ex rel. Carroll v. Bank, 139 Iowa 338, 115 N.W. 937; Simon v. Brown, 38 Mich. 552; Wolfe v. Pugh, 101 Ind. 293; Dewing Hutton, 48 W.Va. 576 (37 S.E. 670). Whinery was acting for the bank in a matter within the scop......
-
Barnes v. Century Sav. Bank
...L. Ed. 144;Martin v. Webb, 110 U. S. 7, 3 Sup. Ct. 428, 28 L. Ed. 49;State ex rel. Carroll v. Bank, 139 Iowa, 338, 115 N. W. 937;Simon v. Brown, 38 Mich. 552;Wolfe v. Pugh, 101 Ind. 293;Dewing v. Hutton, 48 W. Va. 576, 37 S. E. 670. [3] Whinery was acting for the Bank in a matter within the......
-
Compher v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Company
...Smith. The clerk was therefore appellant's agent, and payment to the clerk was payment to appellant. Berrel v. Davis, 47 Mo. 407; Simon v. Brown, 38 Mich. 552; Quinn Dresbach, 75 Cal. 159. (3) Appellant by all of his actions induced respondent to pay the money to the clerk. He is therefore ......
- Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Montague