Gale v. Eckhart

Michigan Supreme Court

Gale v. Eckhart

65 N.W. 274, 107 Mich. 465, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1174

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 17, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 65 N.W. 274 (Gale v. Eckhart) 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

Gale v. Eckhart, 65 N.W. 274, 107 Mich. 465, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1174 (Mich. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

McGrath, C. J.

On October 30, 1893, defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff a deed of certain farm lands. The deed contained the following: “Parties of the first part reserve the use of said described lands until April 1, 1894.” After said date, defendants refused to vacate, and summary proceedings were commenced before a circuit court commissioner to oust them. To show her right to possession, plaintiff produced her deed. The defense was that plaintiff procured the deed by fraudulent misrepresentations. The commissioner found defendants guilty. On appeal to the circuit, defendants were permitted to go into thé alleged defense fully, and [466]*466the jury found for plaintiff. The court, however, after-wards set aside that verdict, upon the ground that a question of title was involved, and dismissed the complaint, and plaintiff appeals.

The rule must be regarded as settled in this State that the question of fraud in the procurement of a deed is properly triable in a court of equity only. Paldi v. Paldi, 95 Mich. 410; Moran v. Moran, 106 Mich. 8. The defense here made would not be available in ejectment, and could not be invoked to oust the commissioner of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s deed Avas admissible for the purpose for which offered, viz., to show plaintiff’s right of possession. Vos v. Dykema, 26 Mich. 399; Bennett v. Robinson, 27 Mich. 26; Gage v. Sanborn, 106 Mich. 269.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment entered here for plaintiff, with costs of all the courts.

Long, Grant, and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Montgomery, J., did not sit.

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

McGrath, C. J.

On October 30, 1893, defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff a deed of certain farm lands. The deed contained the following: “Parties of the first part reserve the use of said described lands until April 1, 1894.” After said date, defendants refused to vacate, and summary proceedings were commenced before a circuit court commissioner to oust them. To show her right to possession, plaintiff produced her deed. The defense was that plaintiff procured the deed by fraudulent misrepresentations. The commissioner found defendants guilty. On appeal to the circuit, defendants were permitted to go into thé alleged defense fully, and [466]*466the jury found for plaintiff. The court, however, after-wards set aside that verdict, upon the ground that a question of title was involved, and dismissed the complaint, and plaintiff appeals.

The rule must be regarded as settled in this State that the question of fraud in the procurement of a deed is properly triable in a court of equity only. Paldi v. Paldi, 95 Mich. 410; Moran v. Moran, 106 Mich. 8. The defense here made would not be available in ejectment, and could not be invoked to oust the commissioner of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s deed Avas admissible for the purpose for which offered, viz., to show plaintiff’s right of possession. Vos v. Dykema, 26 Mich. 399; Bennett v. Robinson, 27 Mich. 26; Gage v. Sanborn, 106 Mich. 269.

The judgment is reversed, and judgment entered here for plaintiff, with costs of all the courts.

Long, Grant, and Hooker, JJ., concurred. Montgomery, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.W. 274, 107 Mich. 465, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gale-v-eckhart-mich-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack