Weare v. Linnell
| Citation | 29 Mich. 224 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 21 April 1874 |
| Parties | Daniel G. Weare v. Henry Linnell and another |
Submitted on Briefs April 8, 1874
Appeal in Chancery from Oceana Circuit.
Bill for release of title to lands, etc. Defendants appeal. Decree reversed and bill dismissed.
Decree of the court of chancery reversed, with costs of both courts and the bill dismissed.
Edwin Baxter, for complainant.
Standish & Fuller, for defendants.
Graves, Ch. J. did not sit in this case.
The complainant filed his bill in this cause to have his right established in certain lands, the apparent title to which is vested in defendant Moffat.
The complainant's case is, that in the year 1856 he located the lands with military land warrants owned by himself, at the United States land office at Ionia, Michigan but that he made such location in the name of the defendant Linnell, then an infant of the age of fourteen years, who was then expected to live with complainant as a member of his family until he should arrive at his majority. The object in making the location in Linnell's name is stated by complainant to have been to secure to said Linnell a compensation or recompense for his services he was expected to perform for the complainant, and to render him safe in all possible contingencies. He avers that the certificates of location were never delivered to Linnell, but were taken by complainant and always remained in his hands; that Linnell in fact knew nothing of the location at the time; that he lived with complainant but a short period, and about the time he left was first told that the lands had been taken in his name, and then expressed an entire willingness to release any claim he might have, to complainant, but that when applied to for a conveyance to complainant after he had reached the age of twenty-one, he refused to give one, but conveyed the same to defendant Moffat, who was cognizant of all the facts. The prayer of the bill is that Moffat may be decreed to release to complainant, and for other and further relief. The defendant Moffat demurred, but his demurrer was overruled, and he then answered, claiming the rights of a bona fide purchaser.
The court below appears, from the decree rendered in the case, to have regarded the transaction as constituting a sale of the lands by complainant to Linnell for the consideration of services to be performed by the latter while he remained a minor, and these never having been performed, the complainant is held to have an equitable lien upon the lands for the value of the warrants with which they were located, and for all costs and expenses attending the location, and for taxes subsequently paid, and interest upon the several amounts from the time of the location or of payment. And the decree ordered the lands to be sold to satisfy the amount of this lien.
The difficulty with the theory upon which the court proceeded is that there never was any purchase of these lands by Linnell from complainant, and the theory of a vendor's lien is inconsistent with the case made by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huxley v. Rice
... ... title shall vest in the person named as alienee in the ... conveyance (Taylor v. Boardman, 24 Mich. 287; Weare v ... Linnell, 29 Mich. 224; Hooker v. Axford, 33 ... Mich. 453; Garfield v. Hatmaker, 15 N.Y. 475; ... Norton v. Stone, 8 Paige 225; Comp. L., ... ...
-
Chapman v. Chapman
... ... Groesbeck v ... Seeley, 13 Mich. 329; Newton v. Sly, 15 Mich ... 396; Harwood v. Underwood, 28 Mich. 427; Weare ... v. Linnell, 29 Mich. 224; Taylor v. Boardman, ... 24 Mich. 287; Tyler v. Peatt, 30 Mich. 64; ... Hooker v. Axford, 33 Mich. 453; Brown v ... ...
-
Palmer v. Sterling
...arises by implication in this state, where a grantor makes a voluntary conveyance, or procures one to be made to another person, Weare v. Linnell, 29 Mich. 224; Jackson Cleveland, 15 Mich. 94. In the absence of any sale on credit the lien cannot exist, and this bill cannot be maintained. We......
-
Dunton v. Outhouse
... ... from a person other than the vendee was not created ... simultaneously with the sale, and it was held in Weare v ... Linnell, 29 Mich. 224, that "a person cannot become ... a purchaser by a transaction of which he is wholly ignorant, ... nor can there be, ... ...