Taft v. Taft

• Decision Date: 01 February 1889
• Citation: 73 Mich. 502,41 N.W. 481
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: EMORY TAFT v. TAFT ET AL. SMITH T. TAFT v. SAME.

41 N.W. 481

73 Mich. 502

EMORY TAFT v. TAFT ET AL.

SMITH T. TAFT v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 1, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Macomb county, in chancery; JOSEPH B MOORE, Judge.

Bill by Emory Taft against Sylvenus A. Taft and others, children and heirs of Adon Taft, deceased, who was also complainant's father, and Minnie Taft, widow of said decedent, for specific performance of a parol contract to convey lands, alleged to have been made by said Adon Taft with complainant and Smith T. Taft, his brother. Smith T. Taft filed a bill for the same purpose, against the same parties. There was a decree for complainants, and Sylvenus A. Taft appeals. The two cases are consolidated on appeal.

Dwight N. Lovell, (A. B Maynard and A. L. Canfield, of counsel,) for appellees.

CAMPBELL, J.

The bill in each of these causes was filed to obtain the specific performance of a parol agreement by Adon Taft complainant's father, that complainant should have certain lands, which were part of Adon's lands, mostly used for farming purposes, after the death of the father. The court below gave a decree for the complainant. The same facts, in substance, came before us in Taft v Taft, 59 Mich. 185, 26 N.W. 426, where it appeared that, in pursuance of the same equities, Adon Taft executed deeds in his lifetime, to be delivered after his death; but, as we then held, the delivery was on such terms as to amount to no more than a testamentary act, not conforming to the statute of wills, and not valid to convey the land. We there held that the equities could not be settled in an ejectment suit, and therefore we could give no opinion upon them. The present suits were brought to establish those equities.

Without going into the facts at large,-and the contest is one of fact almost entirely,-we are satisfied that many years ago Adon Taft prevailed on each complainant to give up his other plans in life, and remain about his father's home, working land, and doing other labor, and rendering other assistance in his father's interests, with the promise and understanding that at or before his father's death the land in question should be made his. It is certain that before his death Adon Taft attempted to carry out his engagements, but failed from a legal error in the formalities of its execution. Upon the substantial merits we have no doubt whatever. The chief defense relied upon in this court is a variance between the bill and proofs. It is undoubtedly true that some of the elements of the contract are not in the proofs precisely as alleged, and in some circumstances there are considerable variances. But there is not the least ground for doubting that the land was promised, that the deed failed of execution, but was...