Stebbins v. Field

• Decision Date: 21 April 1880
• Citation: 5 N.W. 394,43 Mich. 333
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: STEBBINS v. FIELD.

5 N.W. 394

43 Mich. 333

STEBBINS v. FIELD.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 21, 1880

S purchased an administrator's title to certain land subsequently refused to pay for the same, and purchased the title accruing under a mortgage foreclosure. The administrator's sale appearing to be regular, and the jury having found that S. accepted the administrator's deed, the judgment of the court below against him, for the nominal bid, less the encumbrance, is affirmed.

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Ward &amp Palmer, for plaintiff in error.

Wisner & Speed, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL, J.

Suit was brought by defendant in error against Stebbins to recover the price agreed to be paid for an administrator's title to certain lands conveyed to him. Judgment was recovered for this amount in the Detroit superior court, and is removed into this court on error. The facts are partly admitted and partly in dispute. The sale was made November 13, 1874, of four parcels. It having been discovered that the first three parcels made up the amount to be raised, the fourth was treated as not properly sold, and forms no part of this controversy. It was afterwards sold on a guardian's sale. At the time of the administration sale the lands had been sold on a statutory foreclosure for about $4,000, and the redemption would run out in June, 1875. It is claimed to have been understood between the administrator and Stebbins before the sale, as well as after, that the amount of the encumbrance against each parcel should be deducted from any nominal bid for the clear value, so that no more should be paid for any parcel than its value, subject to the encumbrance. The notice of sale provided for the sale of a clear title. The statutes require every purchaser to take the title as it stands, and this understanding, if made, as the jury found, was in accordance with the statutory intent.

There was testimony tending to show that, in the actual bidding these parcels were not all bid off in the name of Stebbins, but that there was an understanding he should take them, absolute or qualified. After the sale he was reported as the bidder and the sale was confirmed.

After the sale the administrator's deed was made out, setting forth, as the consideration, the unencumbered value of the lots. On the objection of his counsel a new deed was made correcting this and some other matters objected to.

There was a controversy as to whether this deed was actually accepted or not; and, also, as to whether Stebbins took possession and exercised acts of ownership. Upon this, the jury have found that he did accept the deed. The acts of possession were left to the jury, merely as...