Tuthill v. Katz

Michigan Supreme Court

Tuthill v. Katz

140 N.W. 519, 174 Mich. 217, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 448

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 20, 1913

DocketDocket No. 64

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 140 N.W. 519 (Tuthill v. Katz) 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

Tuthill v. Katz, 140 N.W. 519, 174 Mich. 217, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 448 (Mich. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Kuhn, J.

This case has been here before, and is reported in 163 Mich. 618, where the facts are fully and clearly set forth. The case having been reversed, on the new trial it was tried before the court without a jury. As in the opinion of the trial judge, the record made on the rehearing did not differ in any material way from that made in the original trial, in accordance with the opinion of this court, he found for the defendants. On this appeal it is claimed that on the former hearing in this court an incorrect opinion was had in reference to the facts concerning the chancery case, the records and files of which, it was said in the previous opinion, were not relevant to the issue. It is the claim of plaintiff and appellant that the decree in that case is res adjudicata of the question involved in this suit. Was the title of the 17£ acres adjudicated in the chancery suit P The bill in that case was filed to correct the description of the 17 i acres in the deed from William Y. Rowley and wife to Alonzo J. Rowley. This plaintiff and one of the defendants therein answered, but asked for no affirmative relief. The court found that the deed was without consideration.

It is a well-established rule that a court of equity will refuse its aid to rectify a mistake in a conveyance that is voluntary and without consideration unless all of the par[219]*219ties consent. Bedding v. Bozell, 59 Mich. 476 (26 N. W. 677); Shears v. Westover, 110 Mich. 505 (68 N. W. 266); 34 Cyc. p. 928.

The court, undoubtedly basing its finding upon this rule, refused to give complainant relief and dismissed the bill. In so far as the title of the property was concerned, this left the parties in statu quo. Defendants having asked for no affirmative relief, a decree could not be made determining the title to the land in question; and the language used by the judge, which it is claimed should be construed as determining this question, is of no effect and no part of the decree. Vary v. Shea, 36 Mich. 388; Vroman v. Thompson, 51 Mich. 452 (16 N. W. 808).

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Steere, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Brooke, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred

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

Kuhn, J.

This case has been here before, and is reported in 163 Mich. 618, where the facts are fully and clearly set forth. The case having been reversed, on the new trial it was tried before the court without a jury. As in the opinion of the trial judge, the record made on the rehearing did not differ in any material way from that made in the original trial, in accordance with the opinion of this court, he found for the defendants. On this appeal it is claimed that on the former hearing in this court an incorrect opinion was had in reference to the facts concerning the chancery case, the records and files of which, it was said in the previous opinion, were not relevant to the issue. It is the claim of plaintiff and appellant that the decree in that case is res adjudicata of the question involved in this suit. Was the title of the 17£ acres adjudicated in the chancery suit P The bill in that case was filed to correct the description of the 17 i acres in the deed from William Y. Rowley and wife to Alonzo J. Rowley. This plaintiff and one of the defendants therein answered, but asked for no affirmative relief. The court found that the deed was without consideration.

It is a well-established rule that a court of equity will refuse its aid to rectify a mistake in a conveyance that is voluntary and without consideration unless all of the par[219]*219ties consent. Bedding v. Bozell, 59 Mich. 476 (26 N. W. 677); Shears v. Westover, 110 Mich. 505 (68 N. W. 266); 34 Cyc. p. 928.

The court, undoubtedly basing its finding upon this rule, refused to give complainant relief and dismissed the bill. In so far as the title of the property was concerned, this left the parties in statu quo. Defendants having asked for no affirmative relief, a decree could not be made determining the title to the land in question; and the language used by the judge, which it is claimed should be construed as determining this question, is of no effect and no part of the decree. Vary v. Shea, 36 Mich. 388; Vroman v. Thompson, 51 Mich. 452 (16 N. W. 808).

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Steere, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Brooke, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 N.W. 519, 174 Mich. 217, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuthill-v-katz-mich-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack