Twiss v. George
Citation | 33 Mich. 253 |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Decision Date | 11 January 1876 |
Parties | Franklin Twiss v. Leander George |
Submitted on Briefs January 6, 1876
Appeal in Chancery from Branch Circuit.
Decree affirmed, with costs.
John B Shipman, for complainant.
Upson & Thompson, for defendant.
This is a bill filed to set aside a conveyance made by one Jasper Underhill to defendant, of lands in Branch county, which complainant alleges belong in equity to him and should be conveyed to him under an agreement made by said Underhill.
Complainant was the step-son of Underhill and came to Michigan with his mother and step-father during his minority, living on a farm of eighty acres, of which the forty acres in question formed a part.
The transaction relied upon is claimed to have been as follows In 1841, a few months after complainant came of age, he was making preparations to go away and set up work for himself. Underhill was opposed to this, and wanted complainant to stay with him and work the farm and take care of the family. After some discussion, complainant accepted his offer that if complainant would do so he would deed him half of his farm, being the forty acres in question, reserving the remainder for his son; that complainant has ever since retained control and management of the farm, improved it, paid taxes on it, and built a house upon it worth several hundred dollars; that Underhill and wife lived with complainant before and after his marriage, until Mrs. Underhill died in 1870, except during some not very long intervals; that after her death, and at the close of 1871, Underhill went to live with defendant, who was his son-in law, and stayed there till his death in the spring of 1873; that in December, 1872, defendant procured, by importunity and undue influence, from Underhill, a conveyance of the property, and in January, 1873, began an ejectment suit, on which he recovered judgment against complainant, who has obtained a new trial under the statute.
Defendant denies the contract, insists on its invalidity if made, and claims to be a purchaser in good faith.
If the testimony in this case can be acted upon, we think the complainant has made out the contract in substance as alleged. If we believe his story, and it has impressed us as reliable, and corroborated by circumstances, the agreement was distinct and certain as to the land and the consideration, and the case shows, not a vague expectation of benefit, but a distinct and positive promise. Neither is it a promise to make a gift. It was an arrangement which contemplated beyond question such family conduct as would benefit both parties; but it involved an expectation of more benefit to Underhill and wife than to complai...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People's Sav. Bank v. Geistert
...of consideration and such performance or part performance as to take the case out of the operation of the statute of frauds. Twiss v. George, 33 Mich. 253;Lamb v. Hinman, 46 Mich. 112, 6 N. W. 675,8 N. W. 709;Putnam v. Tinkler, 83 Mich. 628, 47 N. W. 687;Ruch v. Ruch, 159 Mich. 231, 124 N. ......
-
Bollen v. Shinoe (In re Shinoe's Estate)
...118 Mich. 618, 77 N. W. 271;Stratton v. Stratton, 58 N. H. 473, 42 Am. Rep. 604;Lloyd v. Hollenback, 98 Mich. 203, 57 N. W. 110;Twiss v. George, 33 Mich. 253;Warren v. Warren, 105 Ill. 569.Johns v. Johns, 67 Ind. 441, is to the contrary, and perhaps other cases may be; but we are of opinion......
-
Willard v. Shekell
...did not yield to them the ministrations of a child on any and all occasions. We are satisfied a court of equity has jurisdiction. Twiss v. George, 33 Mich. 253; Lamb v. Hinman, supra; Putnam v. Tinkler, 83 Mich. 628, 47 N. W. 687;Bird v. Pope, 73 Mich. 483, 41 N. W. 514;Carmichael v. Carmic......
-
Selle v. Selle
......McDermott, 91 Mo. 647, 4. S.W. 107, 60 Am. Rep. 270; Sutton v. Hayden, 62 Mo. 101; Davison v. Davison, 13 N.J.Eq. 246; Twiss. v. George, 33 Mich. 253; Kofka v. Rosicky, 41. Neb. 328, 43 Am. St. Rep. 685; Godine v. Kidd, 64. Hun, 585, 19 N.Y.S. 335; Korminsky v. ......