Sponseller v. Kimball

Decision Date29 March 1929
Docket NumberNo. 17.,17.
PartiesSPONSELLER et al. v. KIMBALL et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsdale County, in Chancery; Guy M. Chester, Judge.

Bill by George F. Sponseller and another against Ora C. Kimball and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Robert Crary and Glen L. Fisher, both of Jackson, and Merton Fitzpatrick, of Hillsdale, for appellants.

Paul W. Chase, of Hillsdale, for appellees.

FEAD, J.

In 1903 Mrs. Sponseller acquired 120 acres of land in Hillsdale county, and by 1919 had reduced the mortgage thereon from $2,700 to $1,200. In 1919 her husband made a deal with Kimball to purchase the adjoining 200 acres and three lots in Moscow. Sponseller had no money to pay on the purchase, and on August 13 the deal was closed by deed from Kimball to plaintiffs by the entireties and mortgage back for $11,056, executed by both plaintiffs to Kimball, covering the land purchased and Mrs. Sponseller's 120 acres. The sum covered the whole purchase price and also the $1,200 mortgage, which Kimball paid shortly thereafter. Plaintiffs lived on Mrs. Sponseller's 120 acres until about 1922, when they moved to Moscow, but continued to work the land.

Plaintiffs made some payments on the mortgage, but became in arrears. In 1922 Sponseller was selling gravel from the premises, Kimball commenced suit, and had decree for the gravel money to apply on the mortgage. Plaintiffs continuing in arrears, Kimball threatened action, and on May 24, 1924, to save foreclosure, plaintiffs executed to Kimball a quitclaim deed of the whole premises; plaintiffs retaining possession until January 1, 1925, and having the right to repurchase if they could raise the money. On November 25, 1924, Sponseller paid Kimball $2,000 and took a receipt for the amount to apply on the purchase price of the 320 acres.

In April, 1926, Kimball filed a bill in chancery to restrain defendants from cutting timber, asked that the $2,000 paid in 1924 be decreed to be rent, prayed accounting and possession at the expiration of the period for which the court should find the rent paid. Plaintiffs appeared by counsel, and an agreement of settlement, drafted by their own attorney and signed by both of them, was entered into with Kimball on June 3, 1926, by which plaintiffs expressly affirmed the quitclaim deed of May 24, 1924, disclaimed title or interest in the premises, agreed that the $2,000 would pay rent to July 24, 1926, agreed to vacate the premises on that date, and Kimball agreed to sell to them before that time, for cash, at a price to be arrived at but not to exceed $13,000.

On July 24, 1926, Kimball executed to Sponseller a lease for 60 days and extension of time to purchase to August 3, at $12,100. No purchase having been made, on October 23, 1926, Kimball commenced summary proceedings against Sponseller before a circuit court commissioner for possession of the premises and had judgment of ouster November 4. A writ of restitution was issued, and plaintiffs' son, who was occupying the house, was ejected.

This bill was filed November 16, 1926, to vacate the judgment in summary proceedings, to restrain action thereunder, and for general relief. The parties have treated it as a bill to set aside the mortgage and subsequent conveyance of Mrs. Sponseller's 120 acres on the ground of fraud, and it will be considered as amended to embrace that issue.

The circuit court found, and we concur, that there was no fraud on the part of Kimball in taking the mortgage and subsequent conveyance. If any fraud was practiced on Mrs. Sponseller, it was by Sponseller alone.

Plaintiffs' present claim is that Mrs. Sponseller did not know her land was included in the mortgage, the quitclaim deed, the contract of 1924, and the settlement of 1926. Her claim was supported by her own assertion and by the testimony of her husband that he did not tell her her land was to be included in the mortgage, because she opposed the purchase, he knew she would not sign, and he thought he could pay the debt in a short time and she would know nothing about it. The only extrinsic circumstances supporting the claim were that her husband's father had given her a piece of property in Indiana in addition to what she and her husband owned; that the title was taken in her name to insure a home for herself and her children, as her husband's family considered him improvident; and that she traded the Indiana property for the 120 acres, taking title to the latter in her own name for the protection of the family. The children were grown up in 1919.

On the other hand, her land was described in the instrument by designation as 120 acres as well as by governmental descriptions, and all of the conveyances were read...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Holly Sugar Corporation v. Fritzler
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1931
    ... ... and explain a written contract before he signs it ... Railway Co. v. Bellwith, 83 F. 437 (8th Cir.), 6 R ... C. L. 625; Sponseller, et al. v. Kimball, et al., ... (Mich.) 224 N.W. 359-360; Wilkisius, et al. v ... Sheehan, et al., (Mass.) 155 N.E. 5-6; Shulman v ... ...
  • Pitts v. Monaco Coach Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • June 21, 2004
    ...instruments demands that a person who executes one shall know its contents or be chargeable with such knowledge." Sponseller v. Kimball, 246 Mich. 255, 260, 224 N.W. 359 (1929). If Plaintiff did not understand the terms of the purchase agreement, he had a duty to inquire about its contents.......
  • Parsley v. Monaco Coach Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • June 23, 2004
    ...instruments demands that a person who executes one shall know its contents or be chargeable with such knowledge." Sponseller v. Kimball, 246 Mich. 255, 260, 224 N.W. 359 (1929). If Plaintiffs did not understand the terms of the purchase agreement, they had a duty to inquire about its conten......
  • Scholz v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1991
    ...he was ignorant of its contents, in the absence of circumstances fairly excusing his failure to inform himself." Sponseller v. Kimball, 246 Mich. 255, 260, 224 N.W. 359 (1929). If plaintiff did not understand the terms of the sign-off sheet, she had a duty to inquire about its contents. The......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT