Howard v. Rynearson

15 N.W. 486, 50 Mich. 307, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 785
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 11, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 15 N.W. 486 (Howard v. Rynearson) 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
Howard v. Rynearson, 15 N.W. 486, 50 Mich. 307, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 785 (Mich. 1883).

Opinion

Cooley, J.

The object of this suit is to set aside a conveyance made to defendant by her father, which it is alleged was fraudulent as to his creditors. The land conveyed was subsequently sold on execution, and complainants are the heirs at law of the execution purchaser.

The value of the property conveyed was under a thousand dollars. The father with his wife, both of whom were very old people, was at the time living with and dependent upon the defendant. She was an unmarried woman and supported herself by her labor. The father had for a long time owed her two hundred dollars for money borrowed, and the accruing interest on this debt had increased it to perhaps half the value of the land. This debt and the services she had performed for her parents, together with her agreement to support them afterwards, were the consideration for the conveyance. On the face of the transaction no fraud is apparent. It is said the note was not given up; but this is of little moment, as it was manifestly of no importance to any one after the conveyance had been made. It is also argued that the services performed by the daughter for her parents while they were all living together would not constitute a ground of action or support an implied promise. This is true as a general rule. But in this case the daughter appears to have been the reliance and support of the family for a part of the time at least; and there- can be no doubt of the right of the parents to compensate her for her services in their behalf so far as they were able to do so.

We agree with the circuit judge in dismissing the bill. As the merits have been fully determined, there is no rea[310]*310son why the dismissal should be without prejudice. Defendant will recover costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Michigan Trust Co. v. Comstock
90 N.W. 331 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Mitchell v. Simpson
63 P. 440 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
Belding Savings Bank v. Moore
76 N.W. 368 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1898)
Pettyjohn v. Newhart
51 P. 969 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1898)
Leqve v. Stoppel
66 N.W. 124 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)
Shay v. Wheeler
37 N.W. 210 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1888)
Fraser v. Passage
30 N.W. 334 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
Platt v. Schreyer
25 F. 83 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 N.W. 486, 50 Mich. 307, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-rynearson-mich-1883.