Walker v. Bottomley

• Decision Date: 08 July 1896
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WALKER v. BOTTOMLEY.

67 N.W. 1083

110 Mich. 127

WALKER v. BOTTOMLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 8, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county, in chancery; Samuel W Vance, Judge.

Bill by De Witt C. Walker against Thomas H. Bottomley to quiet title. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

William T. Mitchell, for appellant.

Henry P. Jenney (Frank Whipple, of counsel), for appellee.

LONG C.J.

This bill is filed to quiet title to lot 1, block 1, of Walker's plat of the village of Capac. Complainant claims that he became the owner of the lot prior to 1857; that in that year he made a contract in writing to sell the same to one Alexander Campbell, by the terms of which contract Campbell agreed to erect a blacksmith shop thereon; that Campbell thereafter erected the shop, and about a year afterwards sold and assigned his contract to Reuben Banfill that in the spring of 1858 Banfill called upon him for a deed of the lot under the contract, whereupon he executed a deed ready for delivery, but before delivery he arranged with Banfill to cancel the contract by the payment of certain promissory notes which he had signed with Banfill and by the sale of certain property to him, and that the arrangement was completed by which no deed was to be delivered, but the contract destroyed; that at that time he supposed he took the deed with him from Banfill's house; that, missing the deed, the next morning he called upon Banfill, and was informed by him that, through some mistake, the deed had been burned by Banfill's wife; that thereafter he removed the blacksmith shop from the premises but had occupied them continuously, except as hereafter stated; that in 1868 he for the first time learned that the deed to Banfill had not been destroyed, but had been placed upon record in the office of the register of deeds, and Banfill had conveyed the premises by deed to Amanda Funston and that she, together with her husband, had executed a mortgage upon the premises to John Phelps; that this mortgage was executed January 22, 1868, and about a month after the date of the deed to Banfill, and covered other parcels of land sufficient to pay the amount claimed in the mortgage; that in 1874 Phelps called upon him as an attorney to foreclose the mortgage; that at first he refused to act as an attorney in the foreclosure proceedings, whereupon Phelps promised him that if he would so act that he (Phelps) would bid in the premises, and, after his deed became operative, he would deed to the complainant the lot in question; that he did so act as attorney in the foreclosure, and the lot was sold and bid in by Phelps; that a short time after the redemption had expired he applied to Phelps for a quitclaim deed, and on or about May 11, 1876, Phelps did make and deliver to him a quitclaim deed which he (complainant) supposed was of the lot in controversy; that he recorded it in the office of the register of deeds; that shortly afterwards he learned that Phelps had conveyed the premises to his wife, and she thereupon conveyed to defendant Bottomley; that, hearing Bottomley claimed some...