Stiles v. Stiles

• Decision Date: 05 January 1866
• Citation: 14 Mich. 72
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Melissa Stiles v. Elizur Stiles and another

14 Mich. 72

Melissa Stiles v. Elizur Stiles and another

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 5, 1866

Heard November 11, 1865

Appeal in chancery from Eaton circuit.

The bill in this cause was filed by the complainant, Melissa G Stiles, against her husband, Elizur Stiles, and Wilbert Stiles, his son by a former marriage, to set aside a certain deed of forty acres of land, executed by the complainant to the said Wilbert, on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud.

The bill sets forth that she executed said deed (bearing date September 27, 1858), to said Wilbert, without consideration and that he immediately conveyed the premises to said Elizur that she was induced to execute the same by the representations of the said Elizur, to the effect that the premises were different from those actually contained in said conveyances.

The defendants deny any such fraudulent representations, and allege that the said conveyances were executed in pursuance of an express agreement previously made between complainant and said Elizur.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion for a full understanding of the case.

Decree of the court affirmed.

D. D. Hughes, for complainant:

The deeds of the 27th of September, 1858, amounting to a conveyance from the wife to her husband, are void as against public policy, or if not void, they will be jealously watched, and the husband will be held to show affirmatively that good faith was used, and that the deed was advantageous to the wife.

This has long been the law of contracts between persons whose relations imply undue influence, such as guardian and ward, attorney and client, and under our law authorizing a wife to convey as feme sole, the reason of the rule applies with the strongest force to the relation of husband and wife: 2 Johns. Ch., 549; 32 Barb. 254; 7 Paige 463; 1 Edw. 572.

W. S. Gear, S. T. Douglass, and H. A. Noyes, for defendants:

1. Fraud will not be presumed. The burden is upon the complainant to establish it by proof so clear and conclusive as to leave no rational doubt on the mind as to its existence: 2 Doug. Mich., 176.

2. It is improbable that the complainant could have been mistaken or deceived as to what premises were described in her deed to Wilbert. She had lived many years on the farm, and must be presumed to have known the description of the different parcels, and the testimony adduced by her shows, in opposition to her statement in the bill, that the description was read to her before she signed the deed.

Admit that the transaction appears in the sequel to have been unwise and improvident on her part, it was natural, and it was no more unwise or improvident than her other transactions in respect to her property, the validity of which is not questioned.

Cooley, J. Christiancy and Campbell, JJ. concurred.

OPINION

Cooley J.:

The complainant, who is the wife of Elizur Stiles, files her bill against him and Wilbert Stiles, his son by a former marriage, to set aside a conveyance made by her to the latter, of lands which he has transferred to his father, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud.

From the record it appears that Timothy Hascall died in May, 1853, the owner of a farm of 240 acres, leaving the complainant, his widow, and Charles A. Hascall his son and heir at law. The latter, soon after his father's death, gave a warranty deed of the farm, subject to his mother's right of dower, to his uncle Henry C. Hascall. Charles was a minor when this deed was given, but on August 6, 1853, after he had come of age, Henry C. Hascall conveyed the farm to complainant, with the knowledge and consent of Charles, and she thereby became vested with an undisputed title to the whole.

On June 9, 1855, complainant conveyed the northwest forty acres of the farm to George G. Hascall, an infant son of Charles, and also executed to Charles a mortgage on the undivided two-thirds of the remaining two hundred acres, to secure the payment of her notes for $ 2,300. On the same day, in contemplation of marriage with the defendant Elizur Stiles--which took place the next day--she conveyed to him the same undivided two-thirds of the farm which she had thus mortgaged.

Charles A. Hascall, by the death of his son George, became owner of the forty acres sold to the latter, and the defendant, Elizur Stiles, by means alleged to be fraudulent, but which are immaterial in this case, obtained from him a deed thereof. The Charles mortgage was assigned to one Dennis Morrissy, and on May 7, 1858, the complainant and defendant...