Taylor v. Burdick, 97.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 97.,97. |
| Citation | 320 Mich. 25,30 N.W.2d 418 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. BURDICK. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Arthur Webster, Judge.
Equity proceedings by Anna Taylor against Benjamin D. Burdick, administrator of the estate of Herman Faust, deceased, to obtain a declaration of rights. From a decree for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Meyer Weisenfeld, of Detroit, for appellant.
Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, Ben H. Cole, Asst. Atty. Gen., and L eonard J. Meldman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Plaintiff instituted equity proceedings in circuit court to obtain a declaration of rights under the provisions of Act. No. 36, Pub.Acts 1929, Comp.Laws 1929, § 13003 et seq., Stat.Ann., § 27.501 et seq. The amended bill of complaint alleged that during his lifetime defendant's decedent, Herman Faust, was the owner of a Dodge automobile, and that on the 23rd of April, 1944, Mr. Faust executed an instrument in writing in the following form:
“4-23-44
I, Herman Faust, at these date, turn my car and my insurance property in Cleveland and some money to Mrs. Taylor.
Sgd. Herman Faust.
Witness: James Sugros, Jr.”
Plaintiff further claimed that following the execution of the quoted document the automobile remained in her possession, and that shortly before his death, in September, 1944, Mr. Faust advised plaintiff that he was going to the hospital and did not believe that he would return alive therefrom, and he at that time gave her the keys to the car, telling her in substance that the car was hers. The record does not disclose the date of the death of Mr. Faust, which occurred at some time after his removal to the hospital.
Proceedings were instituted to probate the above instrument in writing as the l ast will and testament of Mr. Faust. Following a hearing, the probate court he ld that the document was not a will and hence not entitled to probate. It does not appear that any appeal was taken from such decision.
Plaintiff further asserted in her amended bill of complaint that she was entitl ed to the automobile in question, as against the defendant administrator, on th e theory that it was a gift to her inter vivos under the writing executed by Mr. Faust in April, 1944, or, in the alternative, that it was a gift causa mortis by virtue of what Mr. Faust said and did immediately prior to his entering the hospital. The court was asked to make a determination of rights accordingly, and to require the defendant to transfer and assign the title of the automobile to plaintiff. Defendant by answer denied the material averments of the bill o f complaint, and further asserted that a valid gift of the automobile to plaint iff could not have been made except by ndorsing the certificate of title in acc ordance with comp.Laws 1929, § 4660, as amended Comp.Laws, 1940 Supp. § 4660, S tat.Ann. § 9.1474. Admittedly, such endorsement of the certificate of title wa s not made. On the trial in circuit court, testimony was offered on behalf of plaintiff, tending to support the allegationsof fact in the bill of complaint. The trial court came to the conclusion that there was no valid gift, because of the failure to comply with the statute in question, and accordingly entered a decree for the defendant, declaring the automobile to be an asset of the esta te. From such decree, plaintiff has appealed.
The section of the statute above cited reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gold v. Harper (In re Ambrose-Burbank)
...a motor vehicle from the owner to another, as well as transfers by operation of law.’ " Id. at 750–51 (quoting Taylor v. Burdick , 320 Mich. 25, 30 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Mich. 1948) ); see also Dodson v. Imperial Motors, Inc. , 295 F.2d 609, 612 (6th Cir. 1961) (collecting Michigan cases) ("The ......
-
Dodson v. Imperial Motors, Inc., 14384.
...v. Neal, 323 Mich. 697, 702, 36 N.W.2d 186; Bayer v. Jackson City Bank & Trust Co., 335 Mich. 99, 105, 55 N.W.2d 746; Taylor v. Burdick, 320 Mich. 25, 31, 30 N.W.2d 418; Sroka v. Catsman Transit-Mix Concrete, Inc., 350 Mich. 672, 676, 86 N.W.2d 801; Cain v. Kroblen GMC Truck Sales, 360 Mich......
-
In re Superior Ground Support, Inc.
...The purpose of these title provisions is to guard against fraud and to discourage unlawful disposition. Taylor v. Burdick, 320 Mich. 25, 30, 30 N.W.2d 418, 421 (1948). Possession of the certificate of title offers tangible and readily verifiable evidence of ownership consistent across the F......
-
Loucks v. Carl Foster & Wards Used Cars
...involving the titles of motor vehicles, and to discourage larceny and unlawful disposition of such vehicles." Taylor v. Burdick, 320 Mich. 25, 30-31, 30 N.W.2d 418, 421 (1948). The Michigan court has also, in several cases, refused to find that title to a vehicle had not passed where there ......