McCarron v. Wheeler

Michigan Supreme Court

McCarron v. Wheeler

114 N.W. 1028, 151 Mich. 222, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 594

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1908

DocketDocket No. 47

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 N.W. 1028 (McCarron v. Wheeler) 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

McCarron v. Wheeler, 114 N.W. 1028, 151 Mich. 222, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 594 (Mich. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). The complainants paid nothing to defendant upon their contract with him, and subsequently sold and conveyed all. the interest they had in the lands, which, under their own theory, was only an equity of redemption. Their grantee therefore succeeded to all their interest in the lands; and that interest was subsequently acquired by the proper deed of conveyance by the defendant. They now seek to apply in payment therefor an amount which they claim is due them upon a prior transaction between defendant and McOarron. The two transactions have no relation to each other. Mr. McOarron testified that he knew a long time before he obtained the $3,674 from the defendant that there was a balance due him on their former dealings. As to that he once had a complete and adequate remedy at law. It had been barred by the statute of limitations á long time before this suit was commenced. A debt barred by the statute of limitations cannot be revived by a i subsequent transaction having no relation [225]*225whatever to the former debt.' It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether there was any mistake in the settlement which the parties made.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Blair, Moore, Carpenter, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). The complainants paid nothing to defendant upon their contract with him, and subsequently sold and conveyed all. the interest they had in the lands, which, under their own theory, was only an equity of redemption. Their grantee therefore succeeded to all their interest in the lands; and that interest was subsequently acquired by the proper deed of conveyance by the defendant. They now seek to apply in payment therefor an amount which they claim is due them upon a prior transaction between defendant and McOarron. The two transactions have no relation to each other. Mr. McOarron testified that he knew a long time before he obtained the $3,674 from the defendant that there was a balance due him on their former dealings. As to that he once had a complete and adequate remedy at law. It had been barred by the statute of limitations á long time before this suit was commenced. A debt barred by the statute of limitations cannot be revived by a i subsequent transaction having no relation [225]*225whatever to the former debt.' It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether there was any mistake in the settlement which the parties made.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Blair, Moore, Carpenter, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.W. 1028, 151 Mich. 222, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarron-v-wheeler-mich-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack