Bowles v. Hoard

39 N.W. 24, 71 Mich. 150, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 589
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 11, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 39 N.W. 24 (Bowles v. Hoard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowles v. Hoard, 39 N.W. 24, 71 Mich. 150, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 589 (Mich. 1888).

Opinion

Champlin, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee, in chancery, awarding the surplus arising from a foreclosure sale to Ella L. Bowles, the divorced wife of defendant Charles P. Hoard.

The undisputed facts appear to'be as follows: Solomon H. Hoard died about 14 years ago, seized of the W. -J- of the S. W7 | of section 33, town 6 N., range 3 E., being-in the township of Shiawassee; also the north 53 acres of the W. i of the N. W. i pf section 4, township 5, N.,. range 3 E., being in the township of Antrim, comprising a farm of 133 acres. He left a widow, Annis Hoard, and three children, 'Ohauncey, Charles P., and Alice Hoard.

Several years after his death, his children made an amicable division among themselves of the farm, excepting 40 acres, consisting of the south 17 acres of the 80 in Shiawassee township, and the north 23 acres in Antrim, upon which was the house occupied as a homestead by the widow; Charles P. taking the 33 acres next north of the homestead 40, Ohauncey taking the north 30j and Alice the south 30, acres of the farm. The diagram showing the division made will be found on next page.

After the above arrangement was made, the defendant Charles P. continued to live with his mother in the house upon the homestead 40, in which he owned an undivided one-third interest, and farmed the same in connection with his 33 acres, of which 16 or 18 acres were cleared and fit for cultivation, but there were no buildings thereon at the time of the divison.

October 1, 1882, Charles P: Hoard was married to Ella L. Bowles. They immediately went to live with his [153]*153mother. It was talked, at the time of the division, that Charles was to take care of his mother; and after her death, or before, the brothers were each to pay their sister $75 for her interest in the 40, and, after the mother’s death, Chauncey and Charles were to make a new division, by which Charles should take the south half, and Chauncey the north half, of 103 acres. This talk has never been consummated, although Charles P. has paid the agreed price to his sister. Chauncey has not. Ella L-took no furniture to the house, except one bed and bedding. They lived together as one family from October, 1882, to April, 1884; the defendant working all the land as he had previously.

[152]*152

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1969
Cross v. Fruehauf Trailer Co.
93 N.W.2d 233 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1958)
Malec v. Oleszko
25 N.W.2d 208 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1946)
Meyers v. Walker
276 S.W. 305 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Polk v. Roebuck
184 S.W. 513 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Corey v. Waldo
86 N.W. 122 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Lawrence v. Morse
80 N.W. 1087 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
William Cameron & Co. v. Gebhard
85 Tex. 610 (Texas Supreme Court, 1893)
Cameron Co. v. Gebhard
22 S.W. 1062 (Texas Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 N.W. 24, 71 Mich. 150, 1888 Mich. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-hoard-mich-1888.