Tilden v. Streeter
| Decision Date | 13 April 1881 |
| Citation | 45 Mich. 533,8 N.W. 502 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | TILDEN v. STREETER. |
A party seeking to have a deed absolute in fact declared a mere security, must do so by evidence that is convincing beyond reasonable controversy. Evidence detailed in the opinion in this case held insufficient to authorize a decree declaring a deed absolute a mortgage.
Appeal from Wayne.
Julien Williams, Robbins & Davis, and Baldwin & Draper, for defendant and appellant.
In approaching this contention it seems needful to refer at some length to certain historical data about which there is no room for controversy. It must be borne in mind however that there are many incidents of special significance more or less connected with these facts; but which as being mere disputes or matters of dispute are in such shape that no account can be given of them in their natural order without digressing into utter confusion. Their bearing and the color they lend to particular points and their ultimate effect can only be understood by a thorough study of the record. This intimation is needed to warn against hasty inferences and implications. By disregarding it and confining attention to a group of undisputed facts exhibited apart from their surroundings and unattended by the conflicting explanations of parties and witnesses there would be great danger of forming most distorted and erroneous views of the actual case on which the court is compelled to adjudicate.
Prior to 1862 complainant's father and mother lived in the little hamlet of Waterford in Oakland county. The place as may be inferred contained less than 200 inhabitants. The dwelling was a small cheap structure, designed to serve as a lean-to for a future upright and the lot consisted of an acre of ground enclosed with a rail fence and the whole premises were in a rude condition. The title was in the wife. Complainant's father went into the army and in 1862 lost his life. Complainant was the only child and was about six years of age. In 1866 his mother intermarried with defendant who was then nearly destitute of property. His business was that of carriage-maker, trimmer and painter. They made the premises referred to the place of their abode. From this time forward during the life-time of complainant's mother the relations between the three appear to have been not merely pleasant, but affectionate. Complainant was well provided for by defendant and evidently treated with indulgence. He was kept at school and no further taxed apparently than was conducive to his own good. The prevalence of good feeling reciprocal and constant, and the intercourse was very frank the complainant manifesting no reserve in his conversation with defendant nor anything like unpleasant subordination in his deportment. There is not a hint in the case of any approach towards ill feeling or disagreement or any jar in their association prior to this controversy. The correspondence in the record affords the strongest evidence of the closeness of their intimacy and the absence of all constraint in their mutual communications.
Sometime after the marriage, but the date is not explained complainant's mother, in character of his guardian received from the United States $649. But before the money was received the defendant commenced improving the little homestead; yet the greater portion of the improvements and indeed nearly all were made afterwards. In the course of a few years a considerable amount in money and labor was expended. He smoothed the face of the lot, planted trees, made fence, erected a barn and outbuildings and added a two-story front to the house. In carrying on this improvement, however, the most of which was about 1870, he used a little over $400 of the money received by Mrs Streeter as the guardian of complainant. During these events complainant's maternal grandfather and grandmother lived near. A married aunt resided in the vicinity and two uncles in Detroit. One of the latter is the gentleman who now appears as complainant's solicitor. The other subsequently removed to Florida. The defendant had two married sisters in Waterford. A state of ill feeling existed between defendant and his mother-in-law, the grandmother of complainant, and complainant felt that his mother's relations were neither warm nor just and not entitled to his hearty love and respect. He was not inclined to confer with them freely and fully. In August, 1878, his mother died intestate, leaving him her sole heir at law. The record contains intimations that there were some small parcels of real estate at or ner Detroit which fell to him in addition to his right at law to the place at Waterford. A few days succeeding his mother's death and about the ninth of September, 1878, complainant, who was then nearly 22 years of age, went to Detroit. It seems to have been his purpose to seek employment there if practicable. His uncle, the solicitor in this case, gave him some assistance. He likewise received aid from his grandmother and from the defendant. He soon entered a business college there and pursued a six-months' course. During this time he corresponded with defendant and complained that his uncle and grandmother were not disposed to give him much assistance and were far from being warm and generous towards him. The other uncle previously mentioned owned a large tract of land in southern Florida and was getting ready to remove there and settle and complainant desired to go with him. But he lacked the necessary means and neither of his relations tendered any, nor attempted to help him obtain them. He wished to procure from $75 to $100 and expected on reaching Florida to get wages by laboring for his uncle and imagined that he might in time succeed in getting a fruit farm for himself and that possibly the defendant would finally join him. He suggested his desires and speculations to the latter and spoke of one or two schemes for hiring the money. December 24th he went to Waterford and visited defendant; and on the 27th the two went to Pontiac and complainant there gave him a quitclaim deed of the homestead and at the same time each executed a will in favor of the other. Complainant then returned to Detroit: but on the seventh of January, 1879, he again visited defendant who at that time gave him $100. It was mutually understood that in consequence of the attitude of complainant's relatives and the desire expressed by complainant to escape their intermeddling and annoyance the existence of the deed should be kept from their knowledge until he should be away from them and beyond their reach. Soon after the reception of the $100 his uncle was apprised of it and was led to suppose it was an advance from defendant and that the latter had nothing from defendant and that the latter had nothing to show for it and he instructed complainant that it was not proper to transact business in that way and that he must give defendant his note for the money. With a view of keeping the real transaction from his uncle and his other relatives he at once executed a note and gave his uncle to understand that he would forward it. He subsequently cut his name off and sent the note thus mutilated to defendant. He explained to the latter how the note came to be made and that his purpose in forwarding it was that it might be represented that his uncle's directions had been complied with. He observed, that of course he would not have the money to pay it on its coming due and if his uncle or his grandmother should wish to pay it, it would be all right and he would be $100 better off. These explanations were made by letter after complainant had gone south, which was on the fifteenth of January, 1879. They kept up a frank and cordial correspondence until the summer of 1879.
June 30, 1879, defendant sold the Waterford property and received therefor $250 cash, a horse worth from $50 to $80 according to the testimony, and a house and lot in Detroit said to be of the value of $800 or $900, and on the tenth of August he married. Complainant almost immediately returned to Detroit and in September he filed this bill. The case made by it and which was set forth under oath cannot be misunderstood. It is in substance that the transaction covering the deed and the furnishing the $100 was exclusively an advance of money by defendant to be repaid and a giving of security therefor by complainant and was not intended to be and in fact was not a sale nor a conveyance of complainant's estate in the land. In support of this claim and for the purpose of accounting for the form and appearance given to the transaction the complainant makes this sworn representation in the bill:
To continue reading
Request your trial