Wilson v. Eggleston

Decision Date06 May 1873
Citation27 Mich. 257
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesHilton Wilson and others v. Lorenzo Eggleston

Heard May 1, 1873; May 2, 1873.

Appeal in Chancery from Kalamazoo.

Decree affirmed, with costs, but without prejudice.

William Fletcher, for complainants.

Robert F. Hill and Arthur Brown, for defendant.

OPINION

Campbell J.

Complainants filed their bill against defendant to establish certain equities in regard to titles and encumbrances held by him against their real estate.

The circumstances out of which the controversy arose were these In October, 1872, complainants, having been unfortunate in business, and their property, alleged to be worth fifteen thousand dollars, having been encumbered by several mortgages and execution levies and sales, amounting in all to something more than seven thousand dollars, desired to obtain a single loan on long time to take up all these claims, so as to enable them to resume business in their machine-shop. The redemption on one execution sale would expire as against them on the 26th of December, 1872. There was also a mortgage in process of foreclosure, on which a chancery sale was afterwards had in January, 1873, and other redemptions would run out at later periods.

Early in October application was made to Theodore P. Sheldon, of Kalamazoo, to aid them in obtaining the desired loan, and after some other suggestions, the bill shows that on the 14th day of October he informed complainants that he thought defendant Eggleston would lend them the money, to an amount sufficient to take up all the claims. Sheldon promised to see Eggleston, and inform complainants (or their agent, Mr Fletcher), what could be done. Meanwhile he impressed it on Mr. Fletcher to keep quiet about the loan, and say nothing to any body about it, as Mr. Eggleston did not wish it known. Fletcher had several interviews with Sheldon, running along about two months, Sheldon constantly urging secrecy, as Mr. Eggleston did not wish it known, but saying he had not yet made up his mind. In one of these interviews, in the last part of November, Eggleston came into Sheldon's bank while Fletcher was there, and Fletcher requested Sheldon to speak with him about the loan. Sheldon spoke with him apart, and came back and reported that Eggleston had not yet determined to make the loan, but to keep quiet and say nothing about it, as Eggleston did not wish it to become known.

On the 23d of December, 1872, complainants learned that Eggleston had been buying up the liens and claims on the land. On the 28th, one of them (Jonathan Wilson) saw him, and he told Wilson he had purchased various claims, including the one on which the redemption expired on the 26th, and had got them at a discount of eight hundred dollars. The bill sets forth that several of the purchases were made at a discount, and that they were so obtained by inducing a belief that they were being taken up for complainants' benefit. Eggleston is charged to have denied having had any thing to do with Sheldon's representations, or having authorized them.

The bill charges that Eggleston knew that Sheldon was, by his representations of making a loan for Eggleston to complainants, misleading them so that they would not look elsewhere for money, until after Eggleston had purchased said encumbrances and liens, and a loan from other sources would be unavailing to them; and also that Eggleston countenanced and encouraged Sheldon so to mislead them. It also charges that complainants have been assured by men of means that they would have lent them the money on the proposed security.

The bill further shows...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Laswell v. National Handle Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1910
    ... ... 39; 38 Am. St. Rep. 116; 55 Am. St. Rep. 406; ... 87 Am. Dec. 738; Chicago, etc., R. R. v ... Titterington, 84 Tex. 218, 19 S.W. 472; Wilson v ... Eggleston, 27 Mich. 257; Grove v. McKee, 53 ... Miss. 536; 14 Ency. Law, pp. 15 to 54.] If plaintiffs are to ... be believed, and there ... ...
  • Laswell v. National Handle Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1910
    ...v. McKee, 13 Mich. 124, 87 Am. Dec. 738; Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Titterington, 84 Tex. 218, 19 S. W. 472, 31 Am. St. Rep. 39; Wilson v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 257; Gross v. McKee, 53 Miss. 536; 14 Ency. Law, pp. 15 to 54. If plaintiffs are to be believed, and there is much to corroborate them,......
  • Huxley v. Rice
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1879
    ...rights, may be so construed in equity as to be a means of saving and protecting his rights. Laing v. McKee, 13 Mich. 124; Wilson v. Eggleston, 27 Mich. 257. It the settled doctrine of the court that where a conveyance is obtained for ends which it regards as fraudulent or under circumstance......
  • Prondzinski v. Garbutt
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1898
    ... ... will grant relief. Southard v. Pope, 9 B. Monroe ... 264; Adams v. Kable, 44 Am. Dec. 772; Wilson v ... Eggleston, 27 Mich. 260; Laing v. McKee, 87 Am ... Dec. 738. The statute of frauds cannot be set up as a ... protection to fraud. Teague ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT