58 Mich. 1 | Mich. | 1885
Lead Opinion
This case came before us with a voluminous record, containing a great deal of conflicting evidence, and has given us no little trouble. The purpose of the bill was to obtain an adjudication that a deed purporting to be made by complainant to her son was a forgery by the son, and that subsequent conveyances and mortgages by the son were therefore void.
The argument of the case loft me somewhat impressed •with complainant’s view of the facts, but on a careful reading of the testimony afterwards I found this impression substantially effaced. And the more I have reflected upon the case since, the more convinced I have become that the deed in question was made by complainant, who weakly suffered herself to be misled and defrauded by her worthless son. This conclusion would dispose of the case and entitle the defendants to protection.
I therefore think the decree should be affirmed. But in affirming it I should deem it proper to provide that if, pending this suit, any of the defendants holding incumbrances
Rehearing
Although the case is one which is not at all satisfactory in many respects, my opinion is that the deed complained of was not a genuine instrument.
Motion for rehearing. Granted.
The motion was granted. The case was again heard June 2-3, 1885, and was decided September 29.
This is a suit to cancel a conveyance of lands in the county of Presque Isle, purporting to have been made by the complainant to her son Leonard C. Crawford pn the 10th day of August, 1878, and also to .set aside a deed made by Crawford to defendant Iioeft, and also a mortgage executed by Crawford to Edwin Hadley and by him. assigned to the defendants Miller and Howley, as encumbrances upon the property. Leonard C. Crawl ord died in 1881, leaving no children. Defendant 'Francis Crawford is the father of Leonard; defendant Turnbull,- the administrator of his estate; and Anna M. Crawford is his widow.
The bill of complaint was filed on the 15th day of August, 18S2, and alleges that on and prior to August 10th, 1878, the complainant Cynthia W. Crawford, owned the property in suit, consisting of several thousand acres of land in Presque Isle county, upon which was a village called Crawford’s Quarry, a saw-mill, store and a valuable stone quarry; that in September, 1873, for the purpose of starting business at Crawford’s Quarry, she leased a part of these lands to her son Leonard C. Crawford, he agreeing to pay her five hundred dollars a year for her support, and pay the taxes on her property in that county; that he did business there under this lease until some time prior to August 10th, 1878, when, the lease having expired, he requested an indefinite continuation of such lease,'and proposed that she deed him, during his life, the quarry lands, covering the lake front and mill property, to be used by him during his life, and on his death to revert to her, as a means of providing .for liinr against any reverses that might happen to her ; that she consented, but expressly reserved section twelve, the town plat, and the old homestead, and with the understanding that this deed was not to be recorded but simply should be held by him as the evience of his life-lease in said land, with no right of sale, and on the further understanding that Leonard should comply with all the terms of the old lease, and especially as to the payment of the taxes and of five hundred dollars annually to herself, said deed being intended tq simply extend said lease during the life of said Leonard and subject to the same con
Defendants Francis Crawford, the heir-at-law, Anua M. Crawford, the widow who took a life estate, and Edwin Hadley made no answer. Defendants Hoeft, Turnbull, administrator, and Miller and Rowley filed separate answers.
Hoeft's answer. Admits the deed and record, and denies the forgery; claims the complainant was in Presque Isle county since the date of the deed and allowed her son, down to his death in October, 1881, to have general control of the place and to sell and mortgage it as his own, and never abjected ; denies any knowledge of the fraud, and charges he purchased in good faith for value, and without notice of ony claim made to the same; relied on this deed and its record, and, though it was well known that he was going to purchase this property long before he did, complainant never informed him of any claim to the property nor objected to his buying it, notwithstanding the fact that she was then at the “Quarry” and knew of his afterwards making large improvements on the property; demurs on the ground that the bill is defective for want of necessary parties; that complainant is estopped by her own laches by having put this property into the hands of her son and allowing him to dispose of it as his own, and also in thus failing to notify him of her claim, though she knew of his purchase and being in possession of the property.
Turnbull's answer. Makes the same substantial defense as the Hoeft answer, but alleges the additional ground of
Miller and Rowley's answer. Says that they know nothing of the matters alleged except as to the mortgage; they admit its existence and record, but deny that Hadley had any knowledge of the fraud or that he was their agent in securing this loan, and aver that, relying upon his representations, they purchased this mortgage in good faith, and paid him therefor seven thousand five hundred dollars, without any notice or knowledge of the claim against this deed, and they allege that complainant is estopped by laches and by a deed of release executed to them January 26th, 1883, whereby she released to them all manner of right to question this mortgage and to further prosecute her suit against them.
General replications to the answers were filed, and the case is before us upon pleadings and proofs. It was first argued before us at the October term of 1884, and was held under advisement until the 9th of April, 1S85, when an opinion was filed by the Chief Justice affirming the decree of the court below dismissing the bill of complaint.
It was there stated that the case contained a great deal of ■conflicting evidence which had given us no little trouble, but in considering the evidence, the majority of the Court did not feel fully assured that the forgery alleged in the bill had been established, but we felt quite well satisfied, as stated by the Chief Justice, “that the deed in question was made by complainant, who weakly suffered herself to be misled and defrauded by her worthless son.” Mr. Justice Campbell did not agree with us in the conclusion which we had reached, and expressed the opinion that the deed complained of was not a genuine instrument. A rehearing was granted, and •the case was at our last term ably and exhaustively argued by counsel for both parties. We have again read the printed record with care, and in addition have critically examined the original depositions and exhibits returned to this Court, and as we have come to a different conclusion from what wo
The main grouud upon which relief is asked is the forgery alleged to have been committed by Leonard C. Crawford of the deed bearing date August 10th, 1878. In weighing the testimony bearing upon this point, it is proper to consider the relation which these parties bore to each other, their age, mentd condition and the surrounding circumstances. The complainant is the mother of Leonard C. Crawford, and lie is said by some of the witnesses to have b.een her favorite son. She was a lady over seventy years of age at the time the forgery is alleged to have been committed, and judging from her testimony her mind and memory must have been weakened by age, for it bears inherent evidence of intellectual decay and of the presence of infirmities incident to advanced years. She frequently contradicts herself and falls into errors without apparent cause. She was inquired of and testified to many things, such as admissions, conversations and transactions which were incompetent as evidence, being within the prohibition of the statute allowing parties to testify as witnesses in their own behalf. All such testimony' we have excluded from our consideration. But the fact remains that she was a weak old woman, dependent upon the son for the management of her business and for the maintenance and support of herself, and that she placed great confidence in his integrity and disposition to do right in his transactions with her. In short, she had a mother’s weakness for a favorite child. Her trust in him is illustrated by the testimony of Mr. Dowling, who was engaged by her to get a reconveyance of the property. She had accused her son of forging the deed, and Dowling had obtained the consent of the son to reconvey the property upon certain conditions more particularly referred to hereafter. Dowling says that he was not acquainted with the descriptions, and he read the deed which her son proposed to execute to her to ascertain if it contained all, and he says she did not seem to know, and she said: “ I guess they are all there; if my son says so, it must be so.”
It is entirely clear that up to August 10th, 1878, Mrs. Crawford was the owner in fee of the valuable property in question. It is not claimed or pretended that Leonard C. Crawford ever purchased this property from his mother or paid her any consideration therefor, and yet a deed bearing date the 10th day of August, 1878, is produced, which, if genuine, vests the title of the whole of this propertyin the son for the nominal consideration of two thousand dollars. He suddenly becomes the ostensible owner, and his mother at the same instant becomes ostensibly a beggar. The proposition is startling, and calls for an explanation of the transaction from
In reaching the conclusion that the deed in question is a forgery, I have laid aside the testimony of each of these witnesses as tinctured with an evident bias. The witnesses who were present at the transaction all agree that, at about the time this deed bears date, Mrs. Crawford signed her name to a certain instrument to which Mrs. Crawford and her son Leonard were parties; they all agree that Mrs. Williams was present on that occasion; they all agree that Mr. Alexander McDonald was a witness called to witness the signature of Mrs. Crawford to the paper then signed by her. The deed in question appears to be signed by Mrs. Crawford, and to he witnessed by Philip O’Farrell and A. McDonald, and the acknowledgment appears to have been taken before Philip O’Farrell as a notary public. The witnesses disagree as to the kind of'paper then signed, as to its appearance, as to who were present, and as to what transpired on that occasion. It is to be remarked, however, that all agree that but one deed was ever made or executed of any lands in Presque Isle county between Mrs. Crawford and her son Leonard that Mr. McDonald was a witness to.
Mrs. Williams testifies that there were present Mrs. Craw
“ In fact I told somebody that I would not be surprised if she had shot me more than I was when she consented to sign it. So I took her into a room of the house — at least, arranged to get her in there — and I explained it to her. Of course, I don’t remember now what language was used; but I am very positive that my intention was to tell her that she was giving him what property she had in Presque Isle county. She went on to tell what he had promised to do with reference to giving her a certain amount of money — I don’t remember the amount — and to make provision for the support of herself and his father, her husband. There was some talk about where the father should stay, whether it was to be in Detroit or up there, and they came to some conclusion about it, but I don’t remember what it was; and I don’t know as I would remember as much as I do only for my surprise about her signing such an instrument at all. Well, then there was something said about what security she would have that he would carry out his agreement with her, and my recollection is, although I would not be very positive about it, that I suggested drawing up a bond or a contract, or something to that effect, and for him to give her a mortgage on the property to secure her in his carrying out this agreement about this support and money, and so on; but what became of that, or whether it was done there and then, I have no definite recollection. Then I remember that we Avent into another room, and in fact Avalked from one room to another talking about the matter. Mrs. Williams was called from, another room, or from up stairs, in the same house, to be as a Avitness, and when Mrs. W illiams came doAvn she was called upon to be*14 a witness. I don’t remember who spoke to her about it, or I don’t remember who called her from up stairs, or wherever she was, but I remember the objection she made, saying she was friendly with the other members or branches of the family, and that she thought that this document would be taking property in Presque Isle county away from them— from the Detroit parties — and that she was going down to Detroit in a very short time; and that it would be bad policy for her to have anything to do with it. She spoke a good deal about how she loved the family; and loved one as well as another; and went on in a woman-like way. and said she didn’t want to have anything to do with it, so Mr. McDonald was called in. It was spoken about going to get somebody, and I think it was Len. that said he was in the store, and that he would get him; and yet my recollection is that he sent for him and brought him in. When he came in, Mrs. Crawford spoke something about the matter; it was generally spoken about there; and Mrs. Crawford said something to Mrs. Williams — I don’t remember what it was — as to why she would not be a witness. But I know that the paper was signed there by Mrs. Crawford, and .1 signed as a witness, and I saw Mr. McDonald sign as a witness. Of course, I would not remember that that Exhibit A is the paper any more than that I do remember when I read the description and remember the time I had arranging to get it into such a condensed form, and it suggests to my mind that it is the paper, because I saw papers drawn up by Mr. Hunt of about the same purport, which were very voluminous; and I know I made it a point to get it in without any repetition in drawing the body of the paper; and my best recollection is that that is the one; and I do know that that is my signature as a witness on it. Well, the paper was signed, and there was something said, but by whom I don’t remember, about how unwise it would be to put it on record, as Mr. Crawford had been in business there before, and there was some debts hanging over him, and likely it would induce his creditors to commence proceedings against him. There was something said about how that could be avoided, but the details of that I cannot remember. But I know after the business was transacted I went away, and I have no distinct recollection of hearing anything about the whole affair until, well, some months or such a matter; I don’t remember exactly.”
On his cross-examination he testified that there was talk of a trust deed, and something was said about the respective
In this connection, the testimony of the register of deeds is noteworthy. He says that he was elected in 1876, and occupied the office in 1877 and 1878 ; that iii the summer of 1878 O’Farrell told him that Leonard C. Crawford would bring a document to be put in his possession for safe keeping, and that he should preserve it and keep it in his possession, and not put it ou record until he was told to, or something to that effect, and that Crawford would pay for keeping it safe; that a few days afterwards Crawford brought to him a warranty deed, a bulky paper written on legal cap, from Cynthia W. Crawford to Leonard; that he looked it over, and took it into his possession for safe keeping ; that it took in all the lands in Presque Isle county belonging to Mrs. Crawford; that he thinks O’Farrell took the acknowledgment, and that McDonald was a witness. Crawford told him not to put it upon record, because he was in such a position that there were some judgments hanging over him, and he did not want to put it on record. lie said he would be in a good position soon, and pay up all; that he looked it over very carefully, and discovered a mistake in the descriptions, and spoke to Crawford about it, 'and he took it, and said it would be fixed again, and he never saw that paper again. It was in O’Farrell’s handwriting. Afterwards he received another deed from Crawford, it being the deed now claimed to be a forgery. He told the witness to keep it in some way, not to put it on record ; that he was in such position that everybody was watching him, and he did not want it to be put on record, and to put it on when he gave notice; and a few months after he told him to record it, and he did so on the 30th day of December, 1878. It will be noticed that this was the day
Mrs. Crawford did not discover the existence of this deed! until the spring of 1880, when she promptly repudiated it and pronounced it a forgery. From that time on she seems to have endeavored to obtain a reconveyance. She is charged with laches, but whether she is guilty of laches must depend in a groat measure upon her opportunities, her surroundings, the relationship of the parties, and the efforts she put forth to obtain a reconveyance. At the “ Quarry ” she was in the hands of her son, and was completely helpless. The-members of the legal profession, so far as we are advised,, residing at the “Quarry” or at Kogers City, were in the-employ of her son. The only way that she could put the-public upon notice of her rights was to talk, and from the-evidence it appears that her tongue was not idle. She-denounced the deed as a forgery to all whom she met. She wrote to the register of deeds forbidding him to record any conveyances from her son, for the reason that the deed had been obtained by fraud — -a futile thing to do, bat she was-doing what she thought she could do to give notice. She-besought Mr. Carpenter, an attorney, and relative of the-family, to see her son, and he did so, but without result. She employed Mr. Dowling, an attorney in Detroit, and lie,, about the middle of October, 1880,visited Crawford’s Quarry, and after a protracted negotiation obtained an agreement from Leonard that he would reconvey by quitclaim deed all the lands covered by the deed of August 10th, 1878, but on
“ The conditions referred to in the within deed, and hereby mutually agreed upon, are those: That this deed shall be placed in escrow with Wm. A. Moore, Esq., of Detroit, Mich., to be by him retained, without filing, recording, or publicity, until the death of said Leonard 0., or of said Cynthia W. Crawford. That if said Leonard C. Crawford dies first, then, on said Cynthia W. Crawford paying in. cash to the widow of said Leonard C. Crawford one thousand dollars, said deed shall be delivered up to her, said Cynthia W. Crawford, and not before. That in case of the death of said Cynthia W. Crawford before said Leonard C. dies, then this deed shall forthwith, upon her death, become null and void, and shall be forthwith delivered up to said Leonard C. Crawford.
Dated Crawford’s Quarry, Presque Isle county, Mich., October 16th, A. D. 1880.
Leonard O. Crawford.
Cynthia W. Crawford.
By M. E. Dowling, her Attorney.”
This deed bears date October 16th, 1880, and at the time of its execution Dowling was not informed of any deeds or mortgages having been executed upon the property. But it turns out that this settlement was a fraud upon tlié rights of Mrs. Crawford scarcely less heinous than the forgery of the deed in the first instance. For, while Leonard C. Crawford was negotiating with Dowling for a settlement of the matter with his mother, and while ostensibly yielding to her a portion of her rights, lie was secretly conveying away and incumbering the whole of the property beyond the means and reach of his mother. To use a familiar quotation, he was “ keeping the word of promise to her oar to break it to her hope.” At the time he wras preparing the quitclaim deed to his mother he was also preparing for execution a deed for an undivided half of the quarry property to Herman Iloeft, and a contract of partnership by which the whole of the quarry property should be put into the firm as assets for ten years, and a mortgage to one Edwin Hadley upon all of the
The testimony of Mrs. Williams has certain peculiarities which incline us to weigh it with caution, yet upon the facts attending the execution of a deed by Mrs. Crawford when McDonald was present, she is clear as to the nature of the instrument and the object to be accomplished thereby. She testifies that O’Farrell was not present at all on that occasion ; that the property conveyed was simply the quarry property, with a reservation ; that it was but a single sheet, and with but little writing upon it, and she is positive in her statement that the deed in question is not the deed which she saw on that occasion. She also testifies to being present at interviews previous to the time the deed was executed between Mrs. Crawford and Leonard, in which he importuned his mother to deed him the land, and that she refused to 'do it, but finally consented to execute a quitclaim deed which should stand in the place of a lease, so he could carry on business, for which he was to support her and her husband if he should remove to the “ Quarry ” to reside, and pay her three hundred dollars annually, which deed should not be placed on record. And this, she says, was the deed which was executed at that time.
The evidence above referred to was before us on the
We are also satisfied from the testimony that the release executed by Mrs. Crawford to Miller and Rowley is valid and effectual, and that in consequence thereof their rights under the Hadley mortgage cannot be disturbed.
The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and a decree will be entered here in accordance with the prayer of the bill, except as to Miller arid Rowley, and as to them the bill ■will be dismissed, but without costs. The decree will also be drawn so as not to affect the rights of any person who is. not a party to this suit. Complainant will recover the costs of both courts.
Rehearing
Motion for rehearing.
Motion was made in this case on behalf of defendants Herman Hoeft and James D. Turnbull, administrator, to vacate and set aside the decree entered therein, or for leave to file a bill for that purpose, on the ground of fraud practiced upon the Court by the complainant’s solicitor in obtaining the decree. The motion is based upon a portion of the opinion of the Court, wherein mention is made of the appearance of the deed from Cynthia W,. Crawford to Leonard Crawford, alleged to have been forged, as justifying, in connection with the other testimony in the case, the conclusion to which the Court arrived that the deed was forged. Affidavits have been filed in support of the motion, in which the affiants state that at the time they saw the deed, and before it was introduced in evidence, such deed consisted of a whole sheet, not seyered at the center fold, and hence a half sheet
No claim is made that the deed returned and remaining on file in this Court is not the identical deed which was introduced in evidence, or that any change or alteration has been made therein, except that it has become worn and its parts pasted together to preserve them. It appears that the instrument has been taken to Denver and exhibited to the witnesses whose depositions were there taken, and also to Chicago for the purpose of exhibiting the same to Mrs. Williams, another witness; and it is quite possible that this may account in a measure for its pocket-worn appearance ; but it does not account for the fact which still remains, that one half of the sheet is wider than the other, nor that the marginal lines, which should be continuous and of the same width apart in a whole sheet, are not so in these two half-sheets when placed together. It may be possible that these discrepancies might occur in cutting and ruling the papei-, but it is not very likely that both should concur in the same sheet. Be this as it may, the affidavits fail entirely to show, and there is no ground for asserting, that the complainant’s solicitor intentionally or unintentionally practiced or attempted to practice a fraud upon the Court with reference to the appearance or condition of the deed in question.
The motion is overruled with costs.
Motion for writ of restitution.
Motion is made for a writ of restitution to be directed to the defendants Herman Hoeft, Francis Crawford, AnnaM.Crawford and James D.Turnbull, administrator, etc., commanding them to deliver up the possession of the
It appears that the parties above named are in possession, and since the entry of the final decree in this Court in said cause possession has been demanded from the defendants in behalf of complainant and defendants refuse to deliver up possession until compelled to do so by the order of this Court. On the hearing of this motion it was urged in behalf of the defendant Iioef t, that he had a right to hold possession until put out by an action of ejectment, in which action he could have the value of the improvements claimed to have been made by him valued by a jury, and he be compensated therefor; and further that this Court has not jurisdiction over the case, as under the statute the files and record have been transmitted to the court below, and the application, if proper at all, should be made in that court where the record now is.
We have no doubt of oitr authority to issue all writs necessary or proper to enforce our decree ; but we think the court below to which the record has been returned has the power and authority to issue the writ of restitution to put defendants out and put complainant in the possession of the premises described in the decree. The deed under which the defendants claim rights and under which they obtained possession was declared by the decree of this Court to be a forgery and void. The defendants cannot claim any rights as having been conferred by such deed, and the complainant is not obliged to resort to the action of ejectment to obtain possession of the premises which this Court decreed to be hers. The complainant is entitled under the decree of this Court to the immediate possession of the land described in the decree, and to a writ of restitution from the court below on an application properly made to that court. We therefore deny the
No costs will be allowed to either party on this motion.