Daniels v. Eisenlord

10 Mich. 454, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 79
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 14, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 10 Mich. 454 (Daniels v. Eisenlord) 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
Daniels v. Eisenlord, 10 Mich. 454, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 79 (Mich. 1862).

Opinion

Manning J.:

The mortgagor agreed -to support, maintain and provide for his mother, the mortgagee, during the term of her natural life, and was to furnish her with proper and necessary board, wearing apparel, meat, food, and medical [457]*457attendance, and pay all funeral charges at her death. There is no evidence the mortgagor in his life time, or his heirs after his death, refused to do all that the condition of the mortgage called for; or of any demand made on them, or either of them, by the mortgagee, or any one on her behalf, for her support. The evidence shows she lived with the mortgagor about eleven weeks, and in the families of Daniels, Yan Aiken, and Parmelee, the rest of the time — mostly in that of Daniels — at the request of the mortgagor. Whatever claim they severally had for boarding and taking care of her, was against the mortgagor, and not against her personally. The mortgage was for her benefit, and not for the benefit of those who might provide her with board and lodging at the request, and on the procurement, of the mortgagor. Daniels’ claim was presented to the commissioners on the estate of the mortgagor, for allowance. We are all clearly of the opinion no breach of the condition of the mortgage is proven, and that the Circuit Court did right in dismissing the bill, with costs.

Where the bill is not dismissed by complainant, or for want of prosecution, and no special provision is made by statute for costs, they are to be paid by such party as the Court shall direct.— Comp. L. §§ 5595, 5596. We think the Court fully warranted by the circumstances of the case in giving costs against the administratrix.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Davis v. Poland
59 A. 520 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1904)
Thomas v. Thomas
33 P. 565 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1893)
Winch v. Bean
62 N.H. 427 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1882)
Stuart v. Worden
3 N.W. 876 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Mich. 454, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-eisenlord-mich-1862.