Churchill v. Scott

32 N.W. 737, 65 Mich. 485, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 620
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 21, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 N.W. 737 (Churchill v. Scott) 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
Churchill v. Scott, 32 N.W. 737, 65 Mich. 485, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 620 (Mich. 1887).

Opinion

Morse, J.

During the life-time of Chauncey G. Pope, •Owen Churchill, as his guardian, duly appointed by the probate court of Berrien county, filed the bill in this cause against the defendants to set aside a deed of certain real estate in said county for fraud, and to obtain whatever relief the court might find the complainant entitled to.

[486]*486Pope died during the pendency of the suit, and Churchill, as administrator, now prosecutes.

The hill alleges that Stephen Scott conspired with George R. Scott, his brother, and Nancy Yaw, his mother-in-law, to obtain by fraud and imposition from Ohauncey G. Pope, a man of unsound mind, and under the control of Stephen Scott and Mrs. Yaw, a farm of 200 acres situated in the township of Bertrand, county of Berrien, of the value of $20,-000, and having a rental value of $800 per year.

The bill also avers that they succeeded in obtaining such deed in the name of Stephen Scott, and, after such deed was executed, kept the said Pope in their custody and under their control, and also kept and disposed of the money and notes received by said Pope of said Scott for the said farm; and that, to further secure the fraudulent acquisition of such farm, the said Stephen Scott conveyed the same to his brother, George R. Scott, taking in return and recording a mortgage upon the premises for $11,000, and that George R. Scott well knew of and was a party to said fraud.

That said Pope received for his farm but very little consideration, the price, $18,000, being chiefly made out by unsecured notes, the benefit of which said Pope never received; that the said conspirators removed said Pope to the state of Texas, and while there caused him to transfer said notes and all his property to the said Nancy Yaw, for which transfer there was no consideration, save her verbal promise to take care of him during the remainder of his life; that the said Nancy Yaw afterwards removed with Pope to Papinsville, in the state of Missouri,—

“And, being blind, he was there kept in concealment, almost entirely deprived of his liberty, and in great destitution of food and clothing, he being frequently subject to cruel treatment and abuse; but his miserable condition became known to one of the inhabitants there, who ascertained from him the name and post office address of said Owen Churchill, and in the summer of 1882 wrote to said Churchill a letter [487]*487stating the facts, and thereupon said Churchill went to said village of Papinsville, and said Chauncey G. Pope willingly returned with him to the village of Three Oaks, in Berrien county.”

The bill attempts to show the proceedings of the conspirators in the furtherance and accomplishment of the alleged scheme.

The defendant Nancy Yaw made no answer, but the Scotts answered separately.

Stephen Scott denies any conspiracy or scheme against Pope to acquire this farm, but avers that on the fourteenth of February, 1880, while said Pope was of sound mind, and in the possession of all his faculties, he purchased and received a deed of the premises from said Pope for the consideration of $18,000, the full value of the farm at that date; that he paid for said land as follows: promissory notes of Pope to him, for money loaned, of about $4,500, principal and interest; $4,000 in a certificate of deposit in the bank of Buchanan, properly indorsed to Pope; and five promissory notes, signed by Stephen Scott and George Scott, for the bal-. anee, about $9,500.

Admits that on the seventh day of March, 1881, he conveyed 160 acres of the land to his brother, George E. Scott, for the consideration of $16,000, and February 28, 1882, he deeded 20 acres to one John Weisgerber for $1,300.

Denies having any part in the removal of Pope to Texas, or any knowledge of the contract made between said Pope and Mrs. Yaw while they were living in that state.

' George E, Scott answers that he knows nothing of the alleged fraud or scheme to acquire the property of Pope, and had no knowledge or notice that when Pope deeded the farm to his brother, Stephen, he was in any way incapacitated from doing business, and supposed that he was fully competent to transact business and dispose of his property; that he purchased the 160 acres in perfect good faith, and at the time of such purchase paid in cash for the same the sum of $5,000. [488]*488and, in payment of the balance, executed to said Stephen Scott a mortgage upon the land for $11,000, of which sum he had paid $4,000 before the filing of complainant’s bill.

Denies any part in the alleged conspiracy, and avers that he had no notice or knowledge of any intention on the part of his brother, Stephen, to purchase, or of Pope to sell, the farm in question, and knew nothing about the transaction until after the land had been deeded.

Upon the pleadings and proofs taken in the cause, the court below decreed, in substance, that f i om a time prior to the fourteenth day of February, 1880, and ever thereafter until his death, the said Ohauncey G. Pope was non compos mentis; that the complainant, as administrator, was entitled to the sum of $9,000, and interest thereon at 8 per cent, per annum from February 14, 1880, such principal and interest amounting, at the date of the decree, to $9,120; that said sum was a valid subsisting first lien upon 180 acres of the land,; that said lien should have priority as against any conveyances or mortgages made by Stephen or George B. Scott, and all liens or conveyances made since February 14, 1880.

The decree further provides that if said Stephen and George B. Scott shall not pay or cause to be paid to said complainant the said sum of money, with interest as aforesaid, within 60 days after service of a copy of the decree upon defendants’ solicitor, then the conveyance from Pope to Stepheu Scott, and from Stephen Scott and wife to George B. Scott, and the mortgage from George B. Scott to Stephen Scott, shall be null and void and held for naught as far as said 180 acres of land is concerned; and the five promissory notes of $2,000 each, signed by Stephen Scott and George Scott, his father, purporting to have been given to Pope, shall also be considered as void and held for naught; and that, in case of such default and such nullification of said conveyances, the complainant shall pay to the register in chancery the sum of $2,938 within 30 days after such default, to be paid by said [489]*489register to whomsoever may be entitled to the same, as after-wards determined by the court. When such sum of $2,938 is paid to the register, and, upon his certificate of such payment, exhibited to said defendants Stephen and George E. Scott, and demand made for possession of said 180 acres by said administrator, the said land shall be delivered to him by said defendants. In case the sum of $9,120, with interest, is paid to the administrator, the conveyances above mentioned shall stand and remain in full force and effect.

The effect of this decree is to find that the last three notes have not been paid to said Pope, or any one in his behalf, •and to declare the same a first lien upon 180 acres of the farm; and, in case the same is not paid, to declare the conveyances void, and provide for the payment to some one of $2,938.

Both parties appeal from this decree.

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

Related

Landis v. Smith
71 N.W. 937 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Abbott v. L'Hommedieu
10 W. Va. 677 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 N.W. 737, 65 Mich. 485, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/churchill-v-scott-mich-1887.