Watson v. Hillman

Michigan Supreme Court

Watson v. Hillman

24 N.W. 663, 57 Mich. 607, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 838

DecidedSeptember 29, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 24 N.W. 663 (Watson v. Hillman) 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

Watson v. Hillman, 24 N.W. 663, 57 Mich. 607, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 838 (Mich. 1885).

Pincite

Opinions

Campbell, J.

In this ease it appears that a part of the plaintiffs were defendants in a chancery suit in which they were decreed to have no title against the second wife of John Probasco. It was their duty in that case, if they had any superior title, to maintain it. If they found newly-discovered facts which would make out a defense, it would have been their duty, if they desired to avail themselves of them, to have the decree opened by bill of review. They cannot attack it collaterally.

The deed from John Probasco to Uzal was, according to the testimony of - Uzal, part of an' entire contract for the exchange of lands, which was abandoned.' Uzal therefore took nothing by it. And I think that the action of John Probasco in giving it a different direction, and obtaining a conveyance to his wife, delivered to himself, and not to her, could not be; operative on behalf of her heirs without some evidence that she was cognizant of and a party to the delivery by some acceptance or approval. - ■

A new trial should be granted.

Ohamplin, J. concurred.

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

Campbell, J.

In this ease it appears that a part of the plaintiffs were defendants in a chancery suit in which they were decreed to have no title against the second wife of John Probasco. It was their duty in that case, if they had any superior title, to maintain it. If they found newly-discovered facts which would make out a defense, it would have been their duty, if they desired to avail themselves of them, to have the decree opened by bill of review. They cannot attack it collaterally.

The deed from John Probasco to Uzal was, according to the testimony of - Uzal, part of an' entire contract for the exchange of lands, which was abandoned.' Uzal therefore took nothing by it. And I think that the action of John Probasco in giving it a different direction, and obtaining a conveyance to his wife, delivered to himself, and not to her, could not be; operative on behalf of her heirs without some evidence that she was cognizant of and a party to the delivery by some acceptance or approval. - ■

A new trial should be granted.

Ohamplin, J. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.W. 663, 57 Mich. 607, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-hillman-mich-1885.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack