Newman v. Ufheil

Michigan Supreme Court

Newman v. Ufheil

26 N.W.2d 712, 317 Mich. 52, 1947 Mich. LEXIS 458

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1947

DocketDocket No. 66, Calendar No. 43,512.

StatusPublished

This text of 26 N.W.2d 712 (Newman v. Ufheil) 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

Newman v. Ufheil, 26 N.W.2d 712, 317 Mich. 52, 1947 Mich. LEXIS 458 (Mich. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Dethmers, J.

Plaintiff’s bill of complaint prays that a deed given by her to defendant, Joseph Uf-heil, be set aside upon the grounds of actual fraud, constructive fraud and lack of consideration. Both plaintiff and said defendant testified. Their versions of the agreement and circumstances under which the deed was given are in sharp conflict. If the facts were as defendant testified, there was no fraud and no ground for setting aside ' the deed. This the plaintiff does not dispute. The trial court *53 believed the defendant and dismissed plaintiff’s bill of complaint. A careful examination of the entire record and, particularly, of the testimony of plaintiff and defendant convinces us that the trial court was correct.

The case being thus disposed of on the facts, a discussion of authorities, as in parties ’ briefs, as to what constitutes constructive fraud, a gift causa mortis, a privileged communication, -or laches, in point were plaintiff’s story to be accepted as true, now becomes idle.

Decree dismissing plaintiff ’s'*bill of complaint affirmed, with costs to defendants.

Caer, O. J., and Butzel, Reid, and North, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, J. Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, JJ., concurred in the result.

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

Dethmers, J.

Plaintiff’s bill of complaint prays that a deed given by her to defendant, Joseph Uf-heil, be set aside upon the grounds of actual fraud, constructive fraud and lack of consideration. Both plaintiff and said defendant testified. Their versions of the agreement and circumstances under which the deed was given are in sharp conflict. If the facts were as defendant testified, there was no fraud and no ground for setting aside ' the deed. This the plaintiff does not dispute. The trial court *53 believed the defendant and dismissed plaintiff’s bill of complaint. A careful examination of the entire record and, particularly, of the testimony of plaintiff and defendant convinces us that the trial court was correct.

The case being thus disposed of on the facts, a discussion of authorities, as in parties ’ briefs, as to what constitutes constructive fraud, a gift causa mortis, a privileged communication, -or laches, in point were plaintiff’s story to be accepted as true, now becomes idle.

Decree dismissing plaintiff ’s'*bill of complaint affirmed, with costs to defendants.

Caer, O. J., and Butzel, Reid, and North, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, J. Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, JJ., concurred in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.W.2d 712, 317 Mich. 52, 1947 Mich. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-ufheil-mich-1947.