Humphrey v. Beckwith

12 N.W. 28, 48 Mich. 151, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 752
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided April 19, 1882·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Marston, J.

The original bill of complaint was filed for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage executed by Beck-with and wife to secure the payment or performance of a certain instrument given to John T. Elliott and by the latter assigned to the complainant Humphrey. A copy of the so-called note and conditions of the mortgage will be found in a note herewith.* The cross-bill was filed for the purpose of having the security cancelled, and on a hearing upon [153] pleadings and proofs, the original bill was dismissed and the relief prayed for in the cross-bill granted.

A careful study of the record satisfies us that the defendant Beckwith’s version of the transaction under which the instruments in question were given is correct; and that the same is truly set forth in the agreement of June 1, 1875, between Beckwith and Mary A. Chubb, a copy of which is given herewith. *

[154] The property of Mrs. Chubb was conveyed to Mr. Beck-with. to enable him to plat and sell the same, pay the encumbrances thereon and Elliott’s claim out of the proceeds thereof, and the balance if any to Mrs. Chubb, and for all this Mr. Beckwith was to receive a commission of ten per [155] cent, on the sales made by him. Beyond this commission and for the purpose indicated Beckwith had no interest in the property. He received no rent or income therefrom, Mrs. Chubb remaining in possession of the premises and enjoying the rents and income derived therefrom, and the property was finally sold upon the Hinsdale mortgage, so-that no moneys came into Beckwith’s hands therefrom out of which he could pay Elliott’s claim. No claim is made that Beckwith abused his trust or that he was guilty of any negligence in his endeavors to sell the property. Elliott was fully cognizant of all the facts, indeed was the prime-mover in the whole transaction, so that he could not enforce in a court of equity the security given him.

Is Mrs. Humphrey in any better position? We think not. The so-called note certainly was not negotiable. Goodenow v. Curtis 33 Mich. 505.

There are no facts in this case to show that she made any inquiry of Mr. Beckwith before she purchased, or that he said or did anything that should now estop him from setting up such a defense. The form of the note was sufficient to-put Mrs. Humphrey on guard, but she seems to have relied upon Mr. Elliott’s statements at the time she took the assignment, although evidently having doubts as to the validity thereof and sufficiency of the security.

We are of opinion that the decree must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Footnotes

On or before four years from the date hereof for value received I promise to pay to JohnT. Elliott or order fifteen hundred and thirty-two and 90-100 dollars, with interest on the same at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, interest not to be paid annually unless the said Beckwith can make it convenient, and other security to be taken in exchange for this note when said Beckwith can realize the same in proper shape from the Mary A. Chubb homestead. This note is secured by a real estate mortgage bearing even date herewith.

William G. Beckwith.

Whereas, the above named Mary A. Chubb, party of the second part hereto, did, on the first day of June, A. D. 1875, by her warranty deed, by her duly executed under her hand and seal, and by her properly acknowledged, for the consideration price of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars to her in hand paid, by William G. Beckwith above named and grantee in said deed named; duly grant, bargain, sell, remise, release, alien, confirm and convey unto said William G. Beckwith, his heirs and assigns, forever, all that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the city of Grand Rapids, county of Kent and State of Michigan, known and particularly described as follows, that is to say: Lot number ten (10) of J. P. Chubb’s addition to the city of Grand Rapids, Kent county, Michigan, and according to the map or plat thereof of _ record in the office of the Register of Deeds of said Kent county, Michigan, together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, etc., etc., reference to which deed so executed and acknowledged, and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds of said Kent county, Michigan, in liber!— of Deeds, on page —, being had for a particular description thereof the same fully appears.

And whereas further, there is a mortgage upon said described premises, executed and delivered by said Mary A. Chubb to one Henry W. Hinsdale, of said city of Grand Rapids, Mich., bearing date on the first day of June, A. D. 1875, to secure payment of the sum of six thousand dollars on the first day of June, A. D. 1879, together with interest thereon at the rate of ten (10) per centum per annum, payable semi-annually ; which said mortgage is of record in said office of the Register of Deeds of said Kent county, Michigan, in liber — of Mortgages, on page —.

And whereas further, said conveyance of said land and premises by said Mary A. Chubb to said William G. Beckwith, was made subject to said mortgage and payment thereof, principal and interest according to the terms thereof, and the said Beckwith accepted such conveyance, assuming, covenanting and agreeing to pay the same principal and interest at maturity.

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

Humphrey v. Beckwith, 12 N.W. 28, 48 Mich. 151, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 752 (Mich. 1882).

12 N.W. 28 (Humphrey v. Beckwith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brooke v. Struthers
35 L.R.A. 536 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)