Welch v. Whelpley
| Decision Date | 17 June 1886 |
| Citation | 62 Mich. 15,28 N.W. 744 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | WELCH and Wife v. WHELPLEY. |
Appeal from Van Buren.
O.N Hilton, for defendant.
This was a bill filed to obtain specific performance of an agreement, claimed to have been made by defendant, father of complainant Eleanor Welch, whereby he agreed, in substance that if his son-in-law and daughter would settle down on the premises in question, near him, he would convey them the land. As complainants represent the matter, Mrs. Welch, was when quite young,--about 16 or 17 years old,--sought in marriage by one Bannon, and defendant promised that if she would marry Bannon he would give her this land, and help improve it. She married Bannon, and something was done towards improving the land. But the marriage was subsequently broken up, and she continued to live with her father and mother, who then had a son also, much younger named Eugene Whelpley. In August, 1868, Eleanor was married to Thomas Welch, who had done some work for defendant, and who also worked more or less elsewhere. In the spring of 1869, Welch obtained employment from one Newcombe, in another town, some 16 miles away, and had an offer of steady employment, which he thought it was for his advantage to accept. Thereupon it is claimed defendant, who wished to keep his daughter near him, proposed to give them this 55 acres of land, and help them to improve it, if they would settle down upon it, and live there, and give up the Newcombe arrangement. Complainants aver that they acted on, and accepted, this proposal, and settled on the farm, and it has ever since been their home. They claim, further, that, in 1876, defendant desired, and they allowed him, to remove or sell timber enough to repay him the original price which he paid for the land, which cost $600, but has been made, within a few years, more valuable by the construction of a railroad near by.
Complainants by their own testimony, and that of Eugene Whelpley, and Mary Whelpley, the former wife of defendant, made out, as we think, very positively the substance of the case relied on. Defendant admits in his testimony the inducement held out to keep his daughter near him, and his anxiety and offer to have them make a home upon the land; but he denies promising to convey it until his death, when he proposed, in his own mind, to divide his property, giving each child one of his farms.
In 1884 defendant's wife separated from him, and got a divorce for ill-treatment, and at that time it is claimed, and we think appears, that the divorce was supposed to throw a difficulty in the way of a conveyance. Afterwards, however, she arranged matters so as to quitclaim her dower right. Defendant, nevertheless, refused to convey.
So far as the facts are concerned, we think complainants' case made out. Their story is much more reasonable than defendant's. It is not at all likely that a young, industrious man would break up his opportunities of employment, and settle down, as complainant did here, upon what was practically no inducement whatever. Defendant is evidently a very positive, and somewhat domineering, man, who was attached to his daughter, and anxious to have her near him, and willing, if he could have his own way, to be helpful in many ways. It was natural and proper that she should reciprocate this desire. But it is not at all likely, and it would not be creditable, that her husband should merge his condition and prospects in such a way as to have no assurance whatever that he would reap any reward for his labors and...
To continue reading
Request your trial