Walker v. Conant

• Decision Date: 15 February 1887
• Citation: 65 Mich. 194,31 N.W. 786
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WALKER v. CONANT.

31 N.W. 786

65 Mich. 194

WALKER v. CONANT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 15, 1887

Error to Monroe.

O.A. Critchett, for plaintiff and appellant.

G.M Landon and I.R. Grosvener, for defendant.

CHAMPLIN J.

This case comes before us upon demurrer to the special count in a declaration, which reads as follows: "For that whereas heretofore, to-wit, on the twenty-fifth day of January A.D.1885, the defendant held a certain false, fraudulent, and forged mortgage, purporting to have been given, executed acknowledged, and delivered to her, before said date, by one Henry H. Van Riper, and his wife, Lydia A. Van Riper, upon the south-west quarter of section thirty-two, in town one south, of range ten east, in the county of Wayne and state of Michigan, and which had then been recorded in the register's office for said county, in Liber 171 of Mortgages, on page 313, and purported to have been given to secure the payment of a certain fraudulent and forged promissory note, purporting to have been made by said Henry H. Van Riper to said defendant, for the principal sum of one thousand dollars, and upon which note said defendant then claimed an accumulated interest of eighty-three dollars and twenty cents; which note and mortgage both said plaintiff and said defendant then supposed to be genuine, and also that said mortgage was then a good and valid first lien upon said described land for the amount mentioned as aforesaid in said pretended promissory note, and for said further sum claimed as aforesaid as interest thereon, whereas, in fact, said note and mortgage were both forged, and were without any validity whatever; and the plaintiff avers that at said date he had in the hands of his agents, Walker & Walker, of Detroit, the sum of three thousand dollars, and that he had authorized them to loan said sum on mortgage security, in the name of Helen M. Dudley, but for the use and benefit of plaintiff; and the plaintiff further avers that previous to said January 21, A.D.1885, one Edgar J. Van Riper, claiming to be the son of said Henry H. Van Riper, sought to borrow of plaintiff, through his said agents, the said sum of three thousand dollars, belonging to plaintiff as aforesaid, and said Edgar J. Van Riper then informed the said agents of plaintiff of the existence of said forged mortgage held as aforesaid by defendant, but falsely claimed and pretended to plaintiff's said agents that it was a true and genuine mortgage, and a lien upon said described land, and that it must be paid; and plaintiff avers that said Edgar J. Van Riper, by his false and fraudulent representations, which were then made by him, induced the plaintiff, by his said agents, to pay, and plaintiff did pay, to defendant, on January 26, A.D.1885, the amount of said false, fraudulent and forged note and mortgage, held by her as aforesaid, to-wit, the sum of ten hundred and eighty-three dollars and twenty cents; and the plaintiff, on the same day, received, through his said agents, from said Edgar J. Van Riper, a bond purporting to be executed by said Henry H. Van Riper, conditioned to pay to Helen M. Dudley the sum of three thousand dollars, and a mortgage in form upon said described lands, purporting to be executed and acknowledged by said Henry H. Van Riper and Lydia Van Riper, his wife, and running to said Helen M. Dudley, which said bond and mortgage were for the use and benefit of plaintiff, and were on the same day assigned by said Helen M. Dudley to the plaintiff; and plaintiff avers that said bond and mortgage, so as last aforesaid, purporting to be executed by said Henry H. Van Riper and his said wife, were never executed by them, nor by either of them, and that both said bond and mortgage are false, fraudulent, and void, and the signatures thereto of Henry H. Van Riper and Lydia A. Van Riper are forged, and without validity; and plaintiff avers that said sum of ten hundred and eighty-three dollars and twenty cents, which was paid as aforesaid to said defendant by said plaintiff, was paid by him without any consideration whatever, and under a mistake of facts, as above narrated; and said plaintiff avers that he has demanded...