Home/Michigan Supreme Court/Stead v. Grosfield

Stead v. Grosfield

34 N.W. 871, 67 Mich. 289, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 806
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 20, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 871 (Stead v. Grosfield) 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
Stead v. Grosfield, 34 N.W. 871, 67 Mich. 289, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 806 (Mich. 1887).

Opinion

Sherwood, J.

The plaintiff brings ejectment to recover lot No. 9, in block 1, of Joseph Bushey’s subdivision of private claim No. 171, Livernois farm, in the township of Spring-wells, in the county of Wayne, according to the plat of said subdivision, recorded in the office of the register of deeds in said county in Liber 2 of Plats, on page 9, and now included within the city of Detroit.

Plea, general issue.

The plaintiff claims title in fee; for the purpose of showing which he offered in evidence a mortgage from Joseph Bushey, the common grantor, to Mary E. Sage, dated July 2, 1875, the description in which was as follows:

[290]*290“All the following described pieces or parcels of land, lying and being in the township of Spring wells, Wayne county, Michigan, known and described as lots three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine, in block 1; also lot number six, in block two, — all in Joseph Bushey’s subdivision of private claim one hundred and seventy-one, Livernois farm.’ ’

The plaintiff then offered in evidence the deed on foreclosure of said mortgage from the sheriff of said county to Mary E. Sage, covering same property.

The plaintiff next offered the proceedings in probate court of said county, whereby the will of Mary E. Sage, deceased, was probated, and under which Michael J. Sage took title to the land in question.

Plaintiff further offered a deed from Michael J. Sage to Robert Stead, the plaintiff dated February 21, 1881.

It was admitted the defendants were in possession, claiming as owners, at the time this suit was commenced, and the plaintiff then rested his case.

The defendants, to maintain their defense, offered in evidence a mortgage from Joseph Bushey and wife to Michael Darmstadter, dated February 17, 1873, for $500, on lots numbered 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, of Joseph Bushey’s subdivision of private claim No. 171, in Springwells, Wayne county, Michigan, recorded the seventeenth day of February, 1873, and claiming to cover the lot in suit.

Defendants next offered in evidence the sheriff’s deed on the foreclosure of said mortgage, dated January 2, 1878, and which contains the same description a3 does tne mortgage. The deed recites, among other things, '-'that a notice was duly published that the said premises in said indenture of mortgage therein contained would be sold;” etc.; and further recites:

“ And whereas, in pursuance of said notice, I did expose for sale at public vendue the lands anl tenements hereinafter particularly described, and on such sale did strike off and sell said land to Michael Darmstadter.”

[291]*291Defendants then offered in evidence a quit-claim deed from Joseph Bushey, and wife, dated January 23, 1879, to Michael Darmstadter, defendants’ grantor on foreclosure, in ' which deed there is a recital as follows:

“Lots numbered nine (9), thirteen (13), fourteen (14), fifteen (15), sixteen (16), seventeen (17), and eighteen (18), of Joseph Bushey’s subdivision of block one (1), of part of private claim numbered one hundred and seventy-one (171), confirmed to Joseph Livernois, Jr., according to the recorded plat thereof, recorded in Book two (2), of plats, on page nine (9), Wavne County Records.
“ This deed is for the purpose of rectifying a clerical error made in a certain mortgage given by the parties of the first part to the party of the second part hereto, and recorded in Liber 95 of Mortgages, page 140, Wayne County Records, wherein the words cin block number one (1),’ were omitted in the sheriff’s deed under foreclosure and sale of said lots.”

The defendants also offered in evidence other testimony to complete, as they claim, the title under the mortgage, first offered by them, from Bushey to Darmstadter.

Defendants then offered a deed from Joseph Bushey ar.d wife to one Scharmweber, dated March 13, 1871, duly recorded March 14, 1871, of lot 9, in block 3, of Bushey’s subdivision of private claim 171, in accordance with Bushej’s subdivision, recorded in Liber 2, page 9, Wayne County Records.

The plat referred to was then offered in evidence by defendants, being a plat of Joseph Bushey’s subdivision of blocks Nos. 1, 2, and 3, made January 6, 187,1.

Defendants next offered in evidence a deed from Joseph Bushey and wife to John Mehl, dated April 4, 1873, and recor ied the same day,—

“ Covering lot nine, in block two, Bnshey’s subdivision of private claim 171.”

Defendants then offered—

[292]*292“ A plat of Joseph Bushey’s subdivision of part of private claim 171, made August 13, 1872, of blocks A, B, C, and D, recorded in Liber 2, page 6, of Plats.”

Á deed was then offered by the defendants from Joseph Bushey and wife to Don M. Dickinson, dated September 26, 1872, which was duly recorded the same day, covering lot 9, block D, Bushey’s subdivision, part of private claim 171.

The following are copies of the two plats referred to:

[293]

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

Related

Keybank National Ass'n v. NBD Bank
699 N.E.2d 322 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1998)
Neas v. Whitener-London Realty Co.
178 S.W. 390 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1915)
Schweiss v. Woodruff
41 N.W. 511 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.W. 871, 67 Mich. 289, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stead-v-grosfield-mich-1887.