Brady v. Sloman

Michigan Supreme Court

Brady v. Sloman

120 N.W. 795, 156 Mich. 423, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 609

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1909

DocketDocket No. 38

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 120 N.W. 795 (Brady v. Sloman) 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

Brady v. Sloman, 120 N.W. 795, 156 Mich. 423, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 609 (Mich. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

{after stating the facts). Actual posses[425]*425sion and occupancy of land constitute a notice to every subsequent purchaser and incumbrancer of the rights and title of such occupants. The record title stood in Baymond. Baymond parted with that title by deed to Brady, Jr. Brady, Jr., had for years exercised complete ownership over the property. The occupancy by tenants was as valid as occupancy by himself. Had the execution creditors made an inquiry of the parties in possession, they would have learned at once that Baymond had no interest whatever in the land, and that Brady, Jr., was their landlord. A grantee in possession of land has a title against all the world, whether his deed is recorded or not. Neither the execution .creditors nor the purchaser, Sloman, could obtain any better title by levy and sale than they could have obtained by purchase from Baymond. Had Baymond deeded to defendant this land, the occupancy of Brady, Jr., through his tenants, would have defeated his title. Sloman & Co. were put upon inquiry by this actual occupancy, and had they made such inquiry they could have proceeded with their levy upon the homestead, which was worth much more than the homestead exemption. This case is ruled by Corey v. Smalley, 106 Mich. 257, and authorities there cited.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Blair, C. J., and Montgomery, MoAlvay, and Brooke, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, J.

{after stating the facts). Actual posses[425]*425sion and occupancy of land constitute a notice to every subsequent purchaser and incumbrancer of the rights and title of such occupants. The record title stood in Baymond. Baymond parted with that title by deed to Brady, Jr. Brady, Jr., had for years exercised complete ownership over the property. The occupancy by tenants was as valid as occupancy by himself. Had the execution creditors made an inquiry of the parties in possession, they would have learned at once that Baymond had no interest whatever in the land, and that Brady, Jr., was their landlord. A grantee in possession of land has a title against all the world, whether his deed is recorded or not. Neither the execution .creditors nor the purchaser, Sloman, could obtain any better title by levy and sale than they could have obtained by purchase from Baymond. Had Baymond deeded to defendant this land, the occupancy of Brady, Jr., through his tenants, would have defeated his title. Sloman & Co. were put upon inquiry by this actual occupancy, and had they made such inquiry they could have proceeded with their levy upon the homestead, which was worth much more than the homestead exemption. This case is ruled by Corey v. Smalley, 106 Mich. 257, and authorities there cited.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Blair, C. J., and Montgomery, MoAlvay, and Brooke, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.W. 795, 156 Mich. 423, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-sloman-mich-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack