Humphrey v. Beckwith
This text of 12 N.W. 28 (Humphrey v. Beckwith) 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
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.
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]*154The 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]*155cent, 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.
$1583.90. Grand Rapids, June 5th, 1875.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 N.W. 28, 48 Mich. 151, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-beckwith-mich-1882.