Stuyvesant v. Wilcox

• Decision Date: 10 June 1892
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: STUYVESANT v. WILCOX.

52 N.W. 465

92 Mich. 233

STUYVESANT v. WILCOX.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 10, 1892

Error to circuit court, Van Buren county; GEORGE M. BUCK, Judge.

Action by John W. Stuyvesant against Calvin Wilcox. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

L. A. Tabor and Boudeman &amp Adams, for appellant.

E R. Annable and Osborn & Mills, for appellee.

LONG J.

This is an action for assault and battery. Defendant is the son-in-law of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was the owner of 80 acres of land in the township of Decatur, Van Buren county. He was a man 79 years of age; and on February 4, 1890, he and his wife executed to the defendant a deed of the farm, and took back from the defendant an instrument in the nature of a mortgage to secure to the plaintiff and his wife their support during the term of their natural lives. At the time of the making of this deed plaintiff was possessed of some considerable personal property, and when he and his wife went to live with defendant, they took their household effects and other articles of personalty with them. Over this some controversy seems to have arisen, the defendant claiming that in the arrangement the title to the personal property was made over to him as well as the title to the farm. Plaintiff held defendant's note, and some difficulty also arose in reference to that; the plaintiff claiming that defendant surreptitiously took the note from his possession after he and his wife went to live with defendant, and refused to surrender it On April following this transfer plaintiff and his wife returned from a visit to their son, and advised the defendant that they had come to take their personal effects, as they had concluded not to reside longer with him. They were accompanied by their son and a man by the name of Youngblood. They went into the house, and the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to take away any of the property, except his and his wife's clothing, claiming that it had been given him by plaintiff for his and his wife's support, and that, having left his house without just cause and against his wishes, the plaintiff was not entitled to the personal property. The plaintiff went out of the house into the barn and got a plane, which was a part of the property taken to the premises by him, and handed it to Mr. Youngblood. Defendant came out and told Youngblood that he should take nothing away from there. He stepped up and took hold of the plane in Youngblood's hands, when the plaintiff also took hold of the plane. Defendant's son was then called by his father to come to his assistance, and he also took hold of the plane with defendant. The four were pulling upon the plane, plaintiff being assisted by Youngblood, and defendant by his son. The plane was a small carpenter's plane, about one foot in length and two inches wide. The claim of the plaintiff is that, during this melee, the defendant struck him in the right side with his fists, knocking him to the ground. From there he was taken home by his son. A physician was called, and he testified that he found the plaintiff suffering considerable pain, and he discovered a flushed redness on the side where plaintiff claims to have been hurt. Plaintiff claims he kept his bed two or three weeks after the injury, and that at the time of the trial he was still suffering pain by reason of this blow. On the trial plaintiff had verdict and judgment for $1,200. Defendant brings error. Some 60 errors are assigned.

On the trial the plaintiff was permitted to introduce testimony tending to show that the plane over which the controversy was had was his property. The evidence introduced was the deed of conveyance, the mortgage taken back, and other writings made between the parties, as well as the testimony of the plaintiff that he never sold to the defendant the personal property, including this plane. The defendant contended that the title to the plane should not be permitted to be shown, and could not be inquired into; that, being in peaceable possession of the plane, and it being on his premises, the plaintiff was a trespasser, whether he was the actual owner or not, in entering upon the premises, and attempting to remove it against defendant's objection and protest. Defendant also contended that he was the actual owner of the plane. This testimony introduced by the plaintiff was all under defendant's objection, and many of the assignments of error are based upon the rulings of the trial court in admitting it.

In its general charge the court directed the jury as follows "Under the undisputed evidence, at the time of the acts complained of in this case defendant was upon his own premises, and whatever took place there was brought about by the plaintiff going upon defendant's premises; that is, gentlemen, whatever occurred at the time referred to happened on defendant's own premises. Whether the defendant was justified in doing what was done on that occasion in defense of his possession of his property, or whether what he did there was unjustifiable, depends upon the facts as you may find them to be. Whether the plaintiff or the defendant owned the personal property in controversy depends upon the bargain made between the parties in relation to the support of the plaintiff and his wife by the defendant. If you find that all the terms of that contract were included in the papers introduced in evidence, and that there was no bargain between the parties that the defendant was to have the personal property in question, and further find that there was never any gift or conveyance of this personal property from the plaintiff to the defendant, then the plaintiff would have a lawful right to go upon the premises of the defendant, and take away his (plaintiff's) property, if he could do so without a breach of the peace. He would not be a trespasser in going on such premises, even against the will of the defendant; and if you find that the plaintiff went on to these premises to take away his own property, and that he took an article of such property, namely, the plane referred to, temporarily into his possession, and while endeavoring to carry it away he was assaulted and beaten by the defendant, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the contrary, you find that the plaintiff and his wife turned over to the defendant all of their personal property as part of the consideration for their support, and that among the other things turned over to the defendant was the plane in question, and that while defendant was in possession of said plane plaintiff came upon defendant's premises to take it away, and that defendant defended his possession of his property with only so much force as was necessary to retain the possession of his own property, then any injury the plaintiff may have received would not be the fault of the defendant, and you should find a verdict for the defendant. And I give you in this connection the defendant's second request, as modified, as follows: 'If you find that the plaintiff, with two other men, came upon defendant's premises, without first asking permission of the defendant to so come there, and without defendant's inviting them there, and openly declared that the...