Wales v. Newbould
Decision Date | 16 November 1860 |
Citation | 9 Mich. 45 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | Austin Wales v. Alexander H. Newbould |
Argued July 15, 1859, April 12, 1860; April 13, 1860; Re-argued April 14, 1860 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Appeal from the Wayne circuit in chancery.
The bill of complaint sets forth substantially the following facts:
Thomas F. Knapp, in his life time, and John Thorn, owned together a certain tract of land in Port Huron, Michigan, the legal title of which was in Thorn. This tract was subdivided and platted, and Thorn had sold several lots before Knapp's decease, which occurred prior to 1848, but had not accounted for the proceeds. LaFayette Knapp and Eliza Knapp were the children and heirs at law of Thomas F. Knapp, the latter of whom married Frank L. Hunt, about 1848, and she, her husband and LaFayette, then filed their bill in chancery in the St Clair circuit, against Thorn, for a settlement and partition of the lands, and a preliminary decree was made in the cause, that one-half the lands belonged to said LaFayette and Eliza, as heirs at law of Thomas F. Knapp, and that Thorn was indebted to them $ 2,500. Thorn died before this suit was finally determined, and it was revived against his representatives. In 1849, LaFayette married Cornelia H. Wales, the daughter of complainant, and in 1850 he died without issue, and his widow, by his death, became entitled to one-half the claim against Thorn, and also to a claim of $ 3,000 against Mrs. Hunt for her support by LaFayette Knapp. Cornelia was made a party to the St. Clair chancery suit. Defendant and Cornelia intermarried in October, 1852, when he also was made a party to the suit, and a final decree was subsequently made in it, that the $ 2,500 be paid by the Thorn estate to the heirs of Thomas F. Knapp either in money or in lands, and the one-fourth of the land was decreed to be in Mrs. Hunt, as such heir, and another fourth as heir of LaFayette, subject to the rights of Cornelia, his widow, and who had been appointed administratrix on his estate. The heirs of Thomas F. Knapp elected to take the $ 2,500 in lands, and eighteen lots were set off to Mrs. Hunt, by commissioners appointed for the purpose, in satisfaction of this sum, but subject to all the rights of said Cornelia. The balance of the land was then divided between Mrs. Hunt and the Thorn estate.
June 6, 1853, an agreement was entered into between Mrs. Hunt and Cornelia (Mrs. Newbould)--who still, notwithstanding her marriage, continued to act as administratrix on the estate of LaFayette Knapp--that Mrs. Hunt should give Mrs. Newbould the eighteen lots in full of the $ 3,000 claim, and of one-half the $ 2,500, which she claimed as representative of LaFayette Knapp, and also seven other lots in full of her claim, as widow of LaFayette, upon the lands set off to Mrs. Hunt, as his heir. The lots were to be conveyed by Mrs. Hunt to Mrs. Newbould, and the latter was to give to one Truesdail, for Mrs. Hunt, a quit-claim deed of the remainder of the land. This quit-claim deed was executed accordingly. Mrs. Newbould, and her husband also, as a part of the same arrangement, gave Mrs. Hunt an indemnity against any claim which the estate of LaFayette Knapp might make against her.
In all these transactions, defendant acted as his wife's agent, and she delivered to him, at Detroit, the deed to Truesdail, to take to Port Huron, and exchange for the conveyance from Mrs. Hunt. Instead, however, of taking the deed from Mrs. Hunt in his wife's name, he took it in his own, so that the legal title was vested in him contrary to her expectations and directions--a fact which she never knew during her life time.
LaFayette Knapp, in his life time, owned an interest in a farm near Detroit, and Mrs. Newbould sold her right of dower therein to John Owen, and took his note for $ 500 therefor, which she delivered to her husband, to collect for her. He collected it, but never accounted for the money. She also, before her marriage with him, and afterwards, owned several articles of personal property, which defendant has and retains.
After LaFayette Knapp died, and before his widow married defendant, complainant owed her $ 926, for which he gave her his note. Before her death, defendant got this note, and now holds it. Defendant also holds a note, given him by complainant, for $ 1,086.70, and about September 5, 1857, he sued both these notes in the Wayne circuit court, when he ought not to recover on the first at all, nor on the second till all the matters above set forth are settled.
Mrs. Newbould died February 23, 1855, leaving complainant her heir at law, who thereupon took out letters of administration on her estate, and finding LaFayette Knapp's estate not fully administered upon, and debts allowed against it, he also took out letters de bonis non upon that.
The bill prays for a full account of all property conveyed to defendant by Mrs. Hunt, and of the sales thereof by him, of the moneys received by him of Owen, and of all her personal property; that he may assign the same to complainant, and that all the property belonging to the estates of LaFayette Knapp and Mrs. Newbould may be disposed of in due course of administration.
The answer avers that Mrs. Newbould requested defendant to take a deed of the twenty-five lots in his own name, and as his own property, and the deed was so made at her request. She knew afterwards that he was using and selling these lots as his own, and never objected. It denies that the deed to Truesdail was delivered to him to take to Port Huron for exchange, but says all the papers were exchanged at Detroit, where the parties then were. The answer also claims, that the moneys received from Owen, and the note of $ 926 against complainant, were given to defendant by his wife. And it insists that complainant has made by his bill no case entitling him to relief; that the bill is multifarious; that as to the personal property the remedy is in a court of law; and that complainant has mingled matters of his own with matters pertaining to the LaFayette Knapp estate, and Mrs. Newbould's estate, and defendant claims the benefit of demurrer.
The following is the most material evidence in the case:
Henry T. Backus (who represented the Thorn estate in the adjustment) testified on behalf of complainant, that Newbould acted on behalf of himself and his wife.
Edwin A. Wales, sworn on the part of complainant:
Cross-examination "The settlement I have referred to between Mrs. Hunt and Mrs. Newbould in relation to St. Clair property, was the result of a negotiation of three or four days. The papers and exhibits annexed to my direct testimony were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carkonen v. Alberts, 27115.
...the Statute of Frauds); Rose v. Hayden, 35 Kan. 106, 10 P. 554, 57 Am.Rep. 145; Inderlied v. Campbell, 119 Me. 303, 111 A. 333; Wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich. 45 (where, however, the parties were husband and wife). The contrary rule is followed in Raub v. Smith, 61 Mich. 543, 28 N.W. 676, 1 Am.......
-
Lamberton v. Pawloski
...jurisdiction of a case for any purpose, will retain it to grant complete relief. Whipple v. Farrar, 3 Mich. 436, 64 Am. Dec. 99;Wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich. 45;Jones v. Smith, 22 Mich. 360;Miller v. Stepper, 32 Mich. 194;Rickle v. Dow, 39 Mich. 91;Chase v. Broughton, 93 Mich. 285, 54 N. W. 44......
-
Red Bud Realty Company v. South
...subdiv. 2; 74 Ark. 536; 19 N.W. 741; 21 Kan. 474; 30 Conn. 316-323; 104 U.S. 245; 59 Ill. 389- 401; 9 Paige (N. Y.) 188-194; 44 Mo. 350; 9 Mich. 45; U.S. 245; 11 Ark. 726. The principle of multifariousness applies "where two parties are attempted to be brought together by a bill in chancery......
-
Jenne v. Marble
...before marriage. The married woman's right to make gifts to her husband was the next puzzle, and was discussed at great length in Wales v. Newbould 9 Mich. 45, Penniman v. Perce id. 509. It seemed to be substantially admitted that she might do so, and in Campbell v. Campbell 21 Mich. 438, a......