Stetson v. Cook

• Decision Date: 21 November 1878
• Citation: 39 Mich. 750
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: John C. Stetson v. Addison P. Cook et al

39 Mich. 750

John C. Stetson v. Addison P. Cook et al

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 21, 1878

Submitted November 1, 1878

Appeal from Calhoun.

Bill to quiet title. Defendant Cook appeals.

Decree reversed and the bill dismissed with costs.

John C Stetson in person and Wm. H. Porter for complainant. A title based on a recorded deed will prevail against a prior unrecorded deed from the same original grantor, if any mesne purchaser under the second deed bought in good faith for a valuable consideration, and without notice of the prior unrecorded deed, Shotwell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410; Godfroy v. Disbrow, Walk. Ch., 260; Shepard v Shepard, 36 Mich. 173; Loomis v. Brush, id., 40; Brown v. Volkening, 64 N. Y., 76; 3 Washb. R. P 291.

G. T Gridley for defendant Cook. One cannot maintain a bill to quiet title unless in actual possession of the land when he files the bill, Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug. (Mich.), 546; and the case must not be doubtful, Tabor v. Cook, 15 Mich. 322; Ormsby v. Barr, 22 Mich. 80; Barron v. Robbins, id., 35; a bill to quiet title to unoccupied wild lands cannot be maintained, Jenkins v. Bacon, 30 Mich. 154; the chancery court is not the proper tribunal to settle conflicting titles, Devaux v. Mayor, Har. Ch., 98; Blackwood v. Van Vleet, 11 Mien. 252; all persons holding possession by virtue of an agreement by which the relation of landlord and tenant is created, have no greater rights in the premises as against the landlord than the original contracting party, and cannot attorn to a third person, Bertram v. Cook, 32 Mich. 518; Falkner v. Beers, 2 Doug, (Mich.), 117; Lee v. Payne, 4 Mich. 106; so that the acceptance of a lease from such person would not put him into actual possession and enable him to file his bill to quiet title, Blanchard v. Tyler, 12 Mich. 339; Byrne v. Beeson, 1 Doug. (Mich.), 179; whatever directs a purchaser's attention to the prior rights and equities of third persons and puts him on inquiry, operates as notice, Wilcox v. Hill, 11 Mich. 256; Curtis v. Mundy, 3 Met. 405; Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cow. 622; Sigourney v. Munn, 7 Conn. 324; 2 Lead. Cas. in Equity, pt. 1, 111-117.

OPINION

Marston, J.

Complainant filed his bill to have a cloud upon certain real estate which he claimed to own in fee, removed.

It is clear that defendant Cook in 1855 purchased the lands in question, with other lands, from one Watson, and that the conveyance thereof was properly recorded in the county where these lands are situate on the 20th day of February of that year. The premises were afterwards sold by Cook to third parties who entered into possession thereof and made improvements thereon, but being unable to pay the consideration as agreed, the lands passed back, and the title thereto, to defendant Cook. He also leased the premises in 1859, by a written lease, and in 1862, by a written contract, agreed to sell the lands to certain other parties, and that possession was taken by the lessees and grantees under these instruments.

Cook's grantor Watson purchased these and other lands in 1854, from the patentee. Some of the lands embraced in this conveyance were situate in St. Clair county where this conveyance was properly recorded December 29th, 1854, but it was not recorded in the county of Calhoun, where the lands in dispute are situate, until May 23d, 1877. Thus far the evidence is clear and undisputed.

Complainant claims to have purchased these premises in good faith and for a valuable consideration from Hugh McCurdy on the 20th December, 1876, which deed was recorded on the next day; and that McCurdy purchased from the patentee, who was Watson's grantor under the unrecorded deed, July 17, 1871, recorded July 22d of the same year.

There is evidence in the case tending to show that McCurdy, when he purchased, had notice of the previous unrecorded conveyance from the patentee to Watson. Mr. McCurdy was not sworn, and it is not claimed really, that, as the case now stands, he could be considered as a bona fide purchaser.

Can complainant be so considered? Complainant before purchasing obtained an abstract of the property, which showed the conveyances under which Cook claimed title.

At the time he purchased he had not seen the land, and the only information and all the information he had respecting its condition, value, etc., he had obtained from a Mr. Fox, who resided near the premises. Fox informed him that the parties who originally occupied the land had abandoned it; that it had been left for a number of years without any owner apparently, and that a Mr. Ellis was then working the land that some ten or twenty acres had been cleared and broken up, and a log house built thereon; that no one was occupying the house and it was going to decay. Acting upon this information and without making any farther or other inquiries, except in reference to taxes which he learned had been paid, except a certain ditch tax, he procured an abstract as already...