Clark v. Gustin

142 N.W. 1081, 177 Mich. 63, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 687
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 30, 1913
DocketDocket No. 121
StatusPublished

This text of 142 N.W. 1081 (Clark v. Gustin) 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
Clark v. Gustin, 142 N.W. 1081, 177 Mich. 63, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 687 (Mich. 1913).

Opinion

Moore, J.

On January 8, 1909, the complainant made a warranty deed to defendant of 120 acres of land. The consideration stated therein is “for and in consideration of the execution of a certain contract bearing even date herewith.” The deed contains the following:

“Saving and reserving unto said party of the first part the use of said premises for and during the term of her natural life. Provided always that if said second party shall fail to perform on his part a certain contract made and executed between first party and second party bearing even date herewith, then the estate above conveyed to second party shall cease and said first party shall have the right to re-enter and dispossess said second party and the estate hereby conveyed shall be forfeited, but in case no forfeiture shall be declared by first party during her lifetime the estate herein granted shall become absolute upon the death of first party.”

The contract referred to in the deed, omitting the formal parts thereof, reads as follows:

“Witnesseth, that whereas, the said party of the first part has this day deeded to said party of the second part, a certain piece or parcel of land situated in the township of Vernon, county and State aforesaid, known and described as follows, to wit: * * *
“And whereas, said first party has reserved in said deed a life estate in and to said lands and has provided for a re-entry and termination of the said estate of said second party, in and to said lands any time during the lifetime of first party, when said second party shall make default in the conditions thereof which condition is the performance of this contract; and providing also that in case said first party shall [65]*65not re-enter or divert or terminate the estate of said second party under said deed during hfer lifetime, that it shall become absolute at the death of first party.
"Now, therefore it is hereby agreed by and between said parties that in consideration of the execution and delivery of said deed by said first party as aforesaid that said second party agrees to move onto the said premises above described and live thereon with said first party and make a home there for said first party and to furnish said first party with board and care in sickness and in health at any and all times, when she shall choose to be and remain at the home of the party of the second part. Said first party to furnish her own clothes, pay for her own medicine and doctor bills and if during sickness it shall be deemed by the attending physician necessary to have a professional or trained nurse the same shall be procured at the expense of first party who shall be boarded free of charge by second party. Said second party agrees to provide and furnish first party with a tenant for said farm who will work the same as long as first party shall live on the terms one-third to first party and two-thirds to the tenant; said tenant to reside in tenant house on said farm. Said first party agrees that all profits derived from said farm under said arrangement with said tenant shall be expended in improvements on said farm.
"First party shall have the right to insist that second party live in the house on the farm above described, but if the parties hereto mutually agree, they may move into the village'of Durand during certain seasons of the year without voiding or affecting any of the other provisions of this contract and the obligation of second party as above provided shall continue the same in such home as though he lived on the farm, but said second, party shall not have the right to move off said farm without the consent of first party.”

July 29, 1911, this bill of complaint was filed. The prayer is:

"(1) That the said deed be set aside and declared to be void and a fraud upon your oratrix, your oratrix being willing to pay and now here tendering to the [66]*66said Gustin any sum found by said court to be due to said Gustin from your oratrix in the premises, the equities in the premises being considered, and that said contract be declared to have been fraudulently obtained and violated, and that said defendant holds said deed without consideration.
“(2) That your oratrix be restored to her rights in said lands, and that a full accounting be had between the parties hereto, and, if the said Gustin has conveyed or incumbered said farm, that your oratrix may make the parties claiming any interest by reason thereof parties to this suit.
“(3) That your oratrix may have such other and different relief in the premises as. may be agreeable to equity and good conscience, and your oratrix will ever pray.”

Mrs. Gustin was not made a party to the proceeding.

The case was put at issue and tried in open court. The record contains upwards of 350 printed pages. The trial judge filed a long written opinion, in which he reviewed the contention of the parties. In the decree occurs the following language:

“And the court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations of the bill of complaint as to fraud, undue influence, or lack of mental capacity on the part of the complainant to enter into the contract with defendant, that there is not a particle of evidence in the case to show that Dr. Fair or Mr. Hicks had any interest in the case whatever, or that they were in any way governed except by the highest and purest motives.
“Neither does it appear that the defendant has been guilty of any violation of his contract which would warrant this court in setting aside the deed; but the court does find that it was intended by the parties that the property described in the bill of complaint * * * was intended by the parties to be the means of giving complainant her board and good care.
“It is also evident that the litigation between the parties has intensified any feeling that might have [67]*67existed between the parties, so it is doubtful, if the undertaking contemplated by the parties can now be so executed that the complainant would be contented and comfortable in the old home with defendant.
“It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the prayer of the bill' asking that the deed be canceled should be denied, but that the defendant be required to pay to complainant the sum of $6 per week, commencing from the 1st' day of September, 1911, and to continue during such time as she may desire to remain away from the home of the defendant, which sum shall be a lien on the land above described, but that complainant shall have the right at any time she sees fit to return to the home of defendant and live 'with him in .accordance with the terms of the contract. Neither, party in this case will recover costs as against the other.”

The complainant has brought the case here by appeal. The defendant did not appeal.

Counsel evidently regard the questions involved as those of fact and not as questions of law, for the counsel for appellant quotes no legal authority in his printed brief,, and in a written memorandum cites only Shepardson v. Stevens, 77 Mich. 256 (43 N. W. 918), while counsel for appellee contents himself with citing Wilson v. Wilson, 160 Mich. 555 (125 N. W. 385).

Mrs. Clark has been in this court before. See Clark v.

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

Related

Shepardson v. Stevens
43 N.W. 918 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Clark v. Ulrich
117 N.W. 329 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)
Wilson v. Wilson
125 N.W. 385 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 N.W. 1081, 177 Mich. 63, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-gustin-mich-1913.