Wurcherer v. Hewitt

Michigan Supreme Court

Wurcherer v. Hewitt

10 Mich. 453, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 78

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 14, 1862

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 10 Mich. 453 (Wurcherer v. Hewitt) 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

Wurcherer v. Hewitt, 10 Mich. 453, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 78 (Mich. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin Ch. J.:

We think the objection that Joseph W. Hewitt was not made a party to the bill in such manner as to put his rights in issue, by the general averment under rule 91 of his being a subsequent purchaser, is well taken. This averment is only to be made where the fact of being a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer appears by the record. In this case, the record gives the title of Joseph W. Hewitt priority to the mortgage, he having recorded his deed first. In such a case, the rule is that the complainant must file his bill specially — if he seeks to avoid the title thus acquired — with distinct averments of the facts and allegations of the fraud which he claims invalidates such title.

The decree must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Martin Ch. J.:

We think the objection that Joseph W. Hewitt was not made a party to the bill in such manner as to put his rights in issue, by the general averment under rule 91 of his being a subsequent purchaser, is well taken. This averment is only to be made where the fact of being a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer appears by the record. In this case, the record gives the title of Joseph W. Hewitt priority to the mortgage, he having recorded his deed first. In such a case, the rule is that the complainant must file his bill specially — if he seeks to avoid the title thus acquired — with distinct averments of the facts and allegations of the fraud which he claims invalidates such title.

The decree must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Mich. 453, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wurcherer-v-hewitt-mich-1862.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack