Trumbull v. January

• Decision Date: 20 February 1900
• Citation: 123 Mich. 66,81 N.W. 970
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: TRUMBULL v. JANUARY.

81 N.W. 970

123 Mich. 66

TRUMBULL v. JANUARY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1900

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Robert E. Frazer, Judge.

Action by Emma A. Trumbull against William L. January. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Lehman Bros. and F. J. Riggs, for appellant.

Edwin F. Conely and Orla B. Taylor, for appellee.

MOORE J.

This action was commenced by declaration. The declaration contained two counts. In the first count, plaintiff avers that Thomas Paulger was threatening to make her trouble concerning certain land, and that, being ignorant of her rights in the premises, she sought the advice of defendant who held himself out as an attorney at law. She then avers that it became the duty of the said defendant to honestly faithfully, and correctly advise her of her rights, and to protect her in the possession and ownership of said land, and to advise her that she had a good title, yet the defendant disregarded said duty, and, on the contrary, with intent to cheat and defraud her of said land, defendant falsely deceitfully, and fraudulently represented to her that she would lose said land, and that she better have $50 than nothing, and that she had better convey the land to defendant for protection, and that, after the said Thomas Paulger was quiet, he would pay her for said land or reconvey to her. She avers that she believed the defendant relied upon what he said, and was deceived by what he said, and induced to execute a deed of said premises, and delivered the same to the defendant, without any consideration whatever, and that the same was obtained from her by fraud and deceit. She further avers that no trouble occurred with said Thomas Paulger, and that the defendant did not reconvey the land to her or pay her the value, but wrongfully, deceitfully, and fraudulently, without her consent or knowledge, conveyed said land to one John Sutton, and fraudulently converted the proceeds to his own use, to her damage $600. The second count declares against the defendant in an action on the case, in the nature of an action for deceit and fraud, averring that the plaintiff was the owner of a house and lot in the village of Plymouth, as described in the first count; that she obtained it from John Paulger on account of care bestowed upon him during his declining years, and that said deed was delivered to her after the said Paulger's death; that she faithfully cared for the said John Paulger during his lifetime, but that Thomas Paulger, a son of John Paulger, threatened to make her trouble, and for that reason she sought the advice and assistance of the said defendant to protect her in her rights and her ownership and possession of said land, said defendant holding himself out as an attorney at law. She avers that it was the duty of the defendant to faithfully, honeslty, and truly inform her of her rights, and to protect her in said property, and to advise her that her title to said lands was valid, yet the said defendant disregarded his duty, and wrongfully and fraudulently made false and fraudulent representations to her, by means of which she was deceived and induced to execute and deliver a deed of said land to said defendant without receiving any consideration therefor, and that the defendant wickedly, wrongfully, and unlawfully cheated and defrauded her of her right, title, and interest in said land, and fraudulently, wrongfully, and knowingly induced plaintiff to convey said land to him without any consideration, and then the there, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, cheated and defrauded her of said land and the value thereof, to her damage $600.

The attorney for the plaintiff proceeded to make an opening statement, when a colloquy occurred between him and the circuit judge and the counsel upon the other side. The judge informed the attorney for the plaintiff that he had mistaken his remedy, and could not recover in this action, and that he would, in his charge, cover the questions involved, so as to make a case that could be reviewed here. The judge then charged the jury as follows:

'Gentlemen of the Jury: This suit is brought by Emma A. Trumbull against William L. January. This action is known in law as an 'action for fraud and deceit.' The basis of the plaintiff's claim is this: That his client, Mrs. Trumbull, then living under the name of Emma A. Blanck, was the owner of a certain piece of property in the village of Plymouth, in this county. That property consisted of a small piece of land, with a cottage upon it, and was valued in the neighborhood of three hundred or three hundred and fifty dollars. That some difficulty had arisen between her and one Paulger as to her ownership of that property, and that she placed her matters in the hands of one Starkweather, of the village of Plymouth. Mr. Starkweather had called in to his assistance in the determination of her rights in this controversy a man named Stanton, an attorney at this bar; and Mr. Stanton visited her at her residence in Detroit on several occasions, and solicited that she go to the office on William L. January, concerning this matter in controversy. That, after two or three solicitations upon the part of Mr. Stanton, she went to the office of William L. January, and there Mr. January had a conversation with her, the purport of which was that Paulger had a lot of money,--more money than she had,--and that he could beat her in this trouble or suit, or give her a good deal of trouble in this controversy, and that they advised her to dispose of the property. She was inclined to do so,--inclined to dispose of it to Mr. January,--he offering to purchase it. She at first declined it, but on a subsequent consultation with her husband, Mr. Trumbull, with whom she was then living, they decided to go back and get what they could not of him; and they did go back, and agreed to sell it to Mr. January on the promise that January was to pay to her at the time of the execution of the conveyance the sum of fifty dollars, and that when he could ascertain whatever the property was worth, upon inspection, that he would return the property to her,--reconvey it to her,--the plaintiff in this suit. Upon the execution of the deed, William L. January did not pay the fifty dollars that she had expected, from the conversation with him, would be paid then and there, without further delay, but told her that he would go out to look at the property, and that she could come in on a subsequent Friday, and that he would pay her the fifty dollars. She came in on that Friday, and on a number of times afterwards, but William L. January never paid her the fifty dollars, or any part of it, or any other part of the consideration. In fact, the claim is, upon the part of the plaintiff, that he obtained the conveyance of this land from her without one cent of consideration whatever. In other words, he obtained it by fraud and misrepresentation, and the conveyance from her to him represented nothing to her,--she got nothing for it; that Mr. January subsequently deeded this property to one John R. Sutton; and that John R. Sutton subsequently deeded it to somebody else.

'The claim of the plaintiff is that under these circumstances she can recover for the fraud and deceit practiced by Mr. January upon the plaintiff in this suit, and that the measure of damages in that case would be the whole value of the property; and it is upon this opinion that counsel for the plaintiff has of the law that this suit is based. Now, mind you, I do not

...