Bush v. Wadsworth

27 N.W. 532, 60 Mich. 255, 1886 Mich. LEXIS 581
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 8, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 N.W. 532 (Bush v. Wadsworth) 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
Bush v. Wadsworth, 27 N.W. 532, 60 Mich. 255, 1886 Mich. LEXIS 581 (Mich. 1886).

Opinion

Morse, J.

These two cases were argued and submitted together, and involve nearly the same state of facts.

The first bill is filed to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant Wadsworth to one Hiram Lewis; and the [261]*261•other to foreclose a mortgage given by Wadsworth to one Isaac Wan Kersen.

In the summer of 1876, Wadsworth bought the land which is covered by these mortgages, — part of it of Lewis and a portion of Wan Kersen. He executed purchase-price mortgages upon the two parcels, — one to Lewis upon the land bought of him, for $2,074, and one to Wan Kersen upon the other piece, for $3,000.

He then sold both parcels to the Eagle Portland Cement Company, subject to these mortgages, the land becoming a part of the company’s plant. This company was composed of the complainant, who resided in Kalamazoo, where the plant was located, and other parties, most of whom resided in Chicago, Illinois.

The corporation was organized and existed under the laws of the state of Illinois.

On the twenty-fifth day of January, 1878, this corporation, being indebted to various parties, elected the complainant its president, and voted to mortgage its plant in the sum of $25,000. It voted to issue, and did issue, bonds of $500 each for the above amount, and executed its mortgage upon its real estate and property to one George L. Otis, as trustee for the holders of said bonds, and to secure them ; the mortgage being in form an Illinois trust deed.

The corporation at this date was owing Bush & Patterson, the complainants in the second bill, who were copartners in business, the sum of $3,359.40 ; also some floating debts in Kalamazoo; about $12,000 in Chicago; and the amount of these Lewis and Wan Kersen mortgages, less payments of $690; and one year’s interest upon the one to Lewis; and $1,000 and $300 interest upon the one to Wan Kersen,— making in all a total indebtedness of about $21,000.

Some of the stockholders were indorsers upon the Chicago indebtedness, and it was agreed that Bush and the others should take a certain amount of these bonds towards the company’s indebtedness to them, or to indemnify them for their liability as indorsers. The complainant Bush took $2,500 of the bonds, and some of the others also took some, [262]*262and paid the amount of the same on the Chicago indebtedness. The indebtedness at the latter place was nearly paid in this manner.

The business of the company not prospering as expected,, it is claimed by the complainant Bush that by an agreement between himself and the other directors, and at their request, he was authorized to run the works, with the understanding that he should do the best he could with the business, and if any profit was made, divide the same among the stockholders, who were also to share in the expenses, and the losses, if any.- This claim is supported by the proofs. Thereupon, commencing about February, 1878, the complainant Bush, or Bush & Patterson, it is immaterial which, carried on the business of the company until the foreclosure of the-Otis trust deed and sale of the property thereunder as here-, inafter stated.

The complainant Bush further claims that when the payments of installments of principal and interest, during this-time, became due on these two mortgages, in order to protect the interests of the trustee, Otis, and himself as holder of a-portion of these bonds, he was obliged to pay, and did pay, upon the Lewis mortgage the sum of $1,671.90, and upon theYan Kersen mortgage the sum of $1,200, whereby he became subrogated to all the rights of said mortgagees, as far as these amounts are concerned.

It is admitted that he paid these amounts, but not out of his own or Bush & Patterson’s money, as he claims. The Improved Eagle Portland Cement Company, which defends, acquired the property subsequently, and asserts that these payments were made with moneys belonging to the Eagle Portland Cement Company, and were paid by Bush as the-president of that corporation.

March 1, 1882, at a foreclosure sale of the premises under the Otis trust deed, the land covered by the Lewis and Yan Kersen mortgages was bid in by one John M. Boundtree, who conveyed to the Improved Eagle Portland Cement Company, the corporation defendant in these suits.. This defend[263]*263ant also holds a deed from the old corporation, the Eagle Portland Cement Company.

In the Otis foreclosure proceedings, the old corporation, Jeremiah P. Woodbury, Allen Potter, and Frederick Bush were made defendants. Woodbury was made a party on the ground that he owned the Van Kersen mortgage, Potter because he was supposed to hold the Lewis mortgage, and Bush for the reason, as therein stated, that he claimed to have-paid out moneys on these prior mortgages for and in behalf of the trustee, Otis. And the decree in that case expressly states and finds that the lands to be sold thereunder are subject to incumbrances which are prior to the trust deed, as follows : To said defendant Woodbury, as holder of Van Kersen mortgage, $1,451.36; to holder of Lewis mortgage, $873.12;- and to Frederick Bush, for moneys advanced upon said prior' mortgages, $3,621.90 ; in all, $5,946.38.

The defendant corporation acquired its title with full knowledge of this decree, and by sale under it.

January 10, 1883, the complainant Bush acquired, by a duly-executed assignment, the note and mortgage given by defendant Wadsworth to Lewis; and on the same day and year the Van Kersen note and mortgage were duly assigned to the complainants, Bush & Patterson. Bush & Patterson also transferred their interest in the Lewis mortgage to Bush.

The defendant corporation in its answers claims, as before stated, that the amounts paid by Bush, or Bush & Patterson, upon these mortgages, before assignment, were paid out of the moneys of the Eagle Portland Cement Company, and as the agent or agents of said company; that the defendant corporation is the assignee of all the property, assets, and choses in action of said Eagle Portland Cement Company, either legal or equitable; and that said complainant Bush had large sums of money in his hands belonging to said old corporation, and it was his duty to apply said funds in payment of these mortgages, and that he had no right to take assignments in his name, or in the name of Bush & Patterson; and that as between complainants and the corporation defendant, as assignee of the old corporation, the mortgages are in [264]*264fact fully paid and satisfied, and ought to be discharged; that said bonds, secured by the Otis trust deed, were issued to pay the indebtedness of the Eagle Portland Cement Company, including these mortgages; that Bush took and disposed of twenty-two of these bonds, amounting to $11,000, for which he never paid said company, nor accounted to it for the price of the same; nor has he ever accounted for them to the defendant corporation, its successor.

This defendant claims the benefit of a cross-bill by its answers, and prays for an accounting, claiming an indebtedness, over and above the mortgages, from Bush to the corporation.

The decrees below dismissed the bills of complainant without prejudice to the right of either or any of' the parties to file a bill for an accounting in relation to the-matters involved, in said suit.

We are satisfied from the proofs that the complainants are entitled to a decree in each cause for the amount due on the note and mortgage in each case.

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

Related

O'Keefe v. Eclipse Pocahontas Coal Co.
115 S.E. 579 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)
Leser v. Smith
189 N.W. 38 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Beyer v. Investors' Syndicate
153 N.W. 476 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Myres v. Yaple
27 N.W. 536 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 N.W. 532, 60 Mich. 255, 1886 Mich. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-wadsworth-mich-1886.