Cline v. Wixson
This text of 87 N.W. 207 (Cline v. Wixson) 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.
Opinion
(after stating the facts). Sewell Cline, when he executed the mortgage, was the owner of the undivided two-fifths of the land. He knew that the deed to Jacob was forged, and that the deed from William to him conveyed only William’s undivided one-fifth. The mortgage was valid as to the two-fifths then owned by Sewell. His heirs, whose rights are the same as his were, will not be permitted to defend a suit at law relying upon the validity of those deeds, and then to maintain a suit in equity upon the ground that they were void because of the forgery of the deed to Jacob. It is alleged in the bill that the mortgage was given to secure a life maintenance for Jacob Cline, but there is no evidence to sustain the allegation. Complainants have failed to prove that there was not a valid consideration for the mortgage. The decree gives them all they are entitled to, and is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 N.W. 207, 128 Mich. 255, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cline-v-wixson-mich-1901.