*1 Regional Broadcasters. Moreschini 1964] placed any knowledge of limitations notice had principal, authority by agent’s his the de- trial court concluded that defendant The fendant. agent’s authority thereby estopped deny to was amply principal. his The record for so to contract finding supports and the law conclusion. appellees. Affirmed. Costs J., C. Dethmers, Kelly, Black, Kavanagh, JJ., concurred. Souris, O’Hara, Adams, v. MESLER.
DeYOUNG Tenancy Wipe Realty—Joint —Intent. — 1. Husband joint tenants and wife as property can be held Real joint tenancy occurs. a a intent to create when clear Tenancy. by Entirety —Joint 2. Same —Estates joint tenancy. by entirety form of are modified Estates Tenancy Presumptions—Intent. — 3. Same —Joint conveyanceto a joint tenancy in a To an create estate clear, negative, sufficiently be words used must and wife the in- presumption that estate the common-law disfavoring estates in view of statutes tended 554.44,554.45). Entirety Tenancy —Intent. —Estates Same —Joint property to a husband entirety, tenants, to create not insufficient addition rendered, do so be would sufficient £5] ] [1, 3, [2] £6 14 14 Am Am-Jur,-Costs Am Jur, Jur, Ani References Jur, Husband Cotenancy Cotenancy 6 et et21 and Wife 10. seq § Points . § et66 seq. in I-Ieadnotes seq. entirety, term not tenants when such is the intent conveyance (CL 1948, 554.44, 554.45). of Personalty—Joint Tenancy 5. Same — —Statutes. *2 hy The statute relative to estates of husband and personalty personalty wife in creates an estate in with full hy of in ease of the of death either may is an estate not the entireties be only, reached the creditor of husband the absence any of being (CL 1948, fraudulent 557.151). transfer involved op Tenancy 6. Costs- —Construction Statutes —Joint in Person- alty Wipe Entirety. Held Husband and —Estates by judgment in proceeding No costs are allowed of creditor hus- against band debenture owned wife, defendant husband and where construction of statute of relative to hus- personalty (CL 1948, band and 557.151). wife is involved Souris, J., dissenting.
Appeal (John H.), from Kent; VanderWal February (Calendar Submitted 5, 1964. No. 34, 50,477.) September Docket No. Decided -by DeYoung, Harold Case Arthur F. Harwood, copartners doing and Clarence Kraker, business as Omega Company, against Construction Mesler Clark plaintiffs. Supplementary resulted in proceedings for by plaintiffs
taken reach debenture held in names of Clark Mesler Marion Mesler, participates proceedings ap- who and on peal. plaintiff right denying Order entered reach an undivided one-half interest Plain- debenture. appeal. tiffs Affirmed. (Sherman Haughey ', Smith & H. Cone, Mitts counsel), plaintiffs. Tubbs, Robert S. for defendants. - attempt J. This case involves O’Hara,
plaintiffs, judgment creditors defendant-husband alone to reach asset in the nature a debenture v. Mesler. issued to wife in defendants both their names. n judgment against was obtained February on 25, 1963. The debenture was issued to January question on wife 1959. No any aof fraudulent transfer of asset the husband to husband and wife is involved. The trial court sought. denied the creditor the relief testimony A statement of a narrative of facts, stipulated constituting, the debenture have been the record. need not forth set the instrument we mention that the but “debenture” those specified of indebtedness” in the “evidences out. The hereinafter set facts above recited are stipulation adequate taken from the of fact and are premise which to our decision. Plaintiffs-appellants ques- base their statement of squarely upon tion statute thus: *3 [Stat No 212 PA 557.151 “Does 1948,_ 26.211]) specifically provides Ann 1957 Eev which payable that made debentures them in shall be held in the same manner as real estate held them, with full right survivorship tenancy by create, instead, property?” the entireties in such accept question stating the the issue. The involved statute herewith is set out: provide joint ownership by “An act for the hus- joint tenancy band and wife in of certain classes of personal property survivorship. with Michigan People “The the State enact: mortgages, prom- “All stock, certificates of bonds, issory'dotes, debtedness hereafter made debentures, other of in- evidences payable persons who payable are or made to them assignees, indorsees or by or otherwise, shall be held joint tenancy such husband wife in unless provided, in the same otherwise therein subject same conse- manner and to the quences the owner- are incident to and conditions as ship under the jointly wife of real estate held right of own- State, with full of this laws ership survivorship either.” of the death of case impression precise question one of first be- is passed upon by it the the However, fore this Court. appeals circuit. for the sixth While court decision binding us, we will
of that is not court reasoning of that herein refer to results the opinion. appellants urged that it is For very meaning In statute is clear its self-evident. argument that is set- substance, their since may own tled law of this that husband and wife state joint tenancy, survivor- or without whep ship rights, legislature that used it follows * * * joint tenancy words “shall be held . expressly provided” with otherwise therein unless exactly respect it meant to evidences indebtedness, They urge addition of that. further ownership by right of words in the full statute “with clearly survivorship in of either” case of the death negatives any legislative intent to create implicit because entireties, They argue the allusion estate. surplus- meaningless thereto'in the statute would be age we the act the manner unless construe - they contend. - appellees an inter- contend that contra, Per- complete legislátive pretation intent", with the variance is at disregards completely phrase- because it subject, ology to the same “in the manner and same *4 consequences are in- and conditions as real of estate cident wife under the of State.” laws husband : argued' We'recognize ably by'appellants what is ‘contrary, presumptions irrespective . to the v. Mesler. property in real this State can he held joint and wife as tenants when a clear intent to joint tenancy create a occurs. question Hoyt
We considered the of this intent in Winstanley, 221 Mich 515. In that case the con- veyance question “Jasper in towas Win- stanley Winstanley, and Elizabeth wife, joint tenants.” The in the was, here, issue case judgment against whether execution a issued only the husband a severable, could reach determina- ble interest of a his. For Court, unanimous Justice (pp 520) wrote : 519, McDonald fact that are “In view the estates joint tenancy, are a modified form the terms interchangeably, that our sometimes used stat species joint tenancy, it ute my pled band and them as a treats joint that the words ‘as cou tenants,’ conveyance in to hus husband wife, an not sufficient to indicate that are conveyed. joint was intended to be estate To joint tenancy create an estate to a the words must be suf used negative presump ficiently clear to the common-law by entirety Es tion that an was intended. estate joint are not favored. tates Since presumptions statutes, all are enactment of our against §§11562, 11563.* them. CL See held under the circumstances think it must be ‘Jasper Winstanley that the deed to this case, conveyed the en tenants,’ wife as estate tirety.” require appears of the cited case The tenancy by that in order not to create realty conveyed wife, even insufficient. tenants” of the words “as use words only to use seems to be alternative Repostek. [*] CL ' 554.44, 554,45 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev 26.44, 26.45)— *5 entirety” when the the such is
“not as tenants conveyance. intent of the controlling
Applying test to the statute tenancy joint the words “in unless case, instant provided, same otherwise therein subject conse- to same manner quences incident to the owner- and conditions as are ship husband and wife” of real estate held necessity the entireties un- mean an estate affirmatively otherwise ex- an intent to do is less pressed. evidence of indebtedness here involved pay simply “promises to Clark Mesler to W. reads and Marion noted, mentioned conceded, we Mesler, his wife.” It is specifically instrument, debenture, that in the statute. judge, the trial as did therefore, conclude appeals In- in Commissioner court of
as did the ternal Revenue v. 6), (CCA 865: Hart 76 F2d Michigan, that a con- rule the common-law “In tenancy veyance creates a to husband respect convey- except entirety ances persisted to has indicating explicitly other kind of some phrase qualifying Even intended. to create a while sufficient tenants,’ ‘as grantees generally, does by of an estate not the creation avoid grantees marital relation stand when Winstanley, Hoyt supra.) (Citing each other.” conveyances being the case toas Such to hold are constrained law, our settled we under of a indicative of the statute is that the in- legislative evidences of create in the intent to specified an estate in the statute debtedness execution It therefore follows entireties. a only, against no fraud be- the husband denying the order ing lie. The will not involved, in the interest undivided reach an motion 1/2 v. Mesler. No construction of a costs, debenture is affirmed. being involved. J., C. Kelly, Kavanagh, Dethmers, Black, Adams, JJ., concurred with Smith, O’Hara, *6 (dissenting). State, In this while bus- Souris, by band and wife can own real estate tenants the as entirety well tenants as as common or as (CL [Stat 1948, 554.45 Ann 1957 Rev 554.44, Hoyt Winstanley, 515; v. 221 Mich 26.44, 26.45]; 477), gen- Duine, Dutcher Van v. 242 Mich as a they personalty by entirety. eral rule own cannot the Bovee, Zeuner, Wait Mich 425; v. Luttermoser v. Scholten, Mich 186; and Scholten v. 238 Mich Exceptions, recognized ju- however, have been legislation. dicially by example, as well For this crops upon entirety grown Court ruled that has realty by (72 entirety. Dickey Converse, are held the v. Rep 568)
117 Mich Morrill 449, Am St (110 Rep Morrill, 138 Mich Am 112, 114, 115 St 306, 1100); by proceeds 4 Ann and, statute, Cas from mortgage or land contract taken the sale of realty by by entirety are received owned entirety. (CL PA 1925, No 126 557.81 §26.191]). [Stat Ann 1957 Rev By legislature provided statute, in 1927 our specified by certain choses action can be held subject and wife “in the same manner and consequences to as are incident to the same and conditions ownership of real estate held by jointly husband and wife under the laws of this by with full State, of the death either.” PA No 212 case ). [Stat § 26.211] Ann 1948, 557.151 1957 Rev It we construe in decision is this permits ownership appeal it which, claimed, specified in action. choses I read the statute to as it is mean, claimed, do not specified all choses in action when therein, made payable and wife, to husband are held them expressly provided.1 the I find it unless otherwise
impossible statutory to read the words of joint tenancy, they used are the classical sense joint tenancy survivorship rights, legislature if” intended, “as had to cre- instead, presumption statutory entirety. ate a of title place, In the first above, as has noted our been entirety ownership person- State does not favor alty concededly, realty, as, and, does absent some plausible therefor, reason it defies belief that legislature sharp have intended would de- parture legal past history from our in this State. Secondly, legislature had the intended, so it seems beyond expressed to me that it doubt would have appropri- such intention use of which is “tenancy ate therefor —that it would have said [or, appropriately, entirety”, title] more instead *7 “joint tenancy” of and instead of “held * * * right husband and wife with full of owner- ship by survivorship”. familiarity Its with such language entirety ownership by of is demonstrated (CL [Stat 1927, PA 210 1948, No 557.101,557.102 26.202]), adopted Ann 1957 Rev 26.201, simul- taneously with Act No 212 which we here construe. By that Act 210, No stated to be declara- tory legislature provided of the common law, the any “tenancy by entirety” may that in land be by spouse terminated from either to the hardly other. It is to be doubted that had the legislature by intended Act No 212 to create also 1 In Hiller 5, v. Olmstead (1931), 54 F2d and Commissioner of Internal Revenue Hart (1935), 864, 76 F2d of circuit court appeals for 1927, the sixth circuit so PA No 212. But in construed Guldager States, 1953, 487, v. United 204 P2d the same ac court knowledged that, absent holding Court, a definitive this the issue open contrary still to a view. v. Meslek. statutory presumption all certificates bonds, promissory mortgages, notes, debentures, stock, of by husband held of indebtedness evidences or other and assignees payees, were or indorsees, wife property, entirety would them as held to be have stated Thirdly, appropriately. intention such § 557.81 1925, No above, PA as noted 26.191]), speaks [Stat likewise Ann 1957Rev entirety, provided appropriately of mortgages, promissory land contracts notes, realty upon tenants of held as the sale taken entirety with all the vendors shall be prior entirety of their of notwithstanding the incidents very realty; limited but money only purchase notes, reach of Act No 126— mortgages, land contracts taken the sale sug- held as tenants is—it years gested passed only 2 that PA No 212, presumption later, raises promissory mortgages, evi- and other all notes, payable, in-
dences of indebtedness when made or assigned, reason, or whatever to hus- dorsed, band wife—and this without reference to reject sugges- restrictive, act. I earlier, more totally history tion of inconsistent our with State’s right spouses reluctance restrict the take personalty, realty, by as contrasted determin- moiety very able reluctance demonstrated —a recognized by including few circumstances, legislature years unitary in which owner- earlier, ship personalty by husband and wife heretofore recognized judicially legislatively has been or this State. policy regard our
Whether State’s wrong not before in this us for consideration only statute; case. Here we we do not construe a *8 apply develop our common law. our Whatever judgment legislative policy, of the wisdom of this 373
508 diminishing Michigan, minority aligning awith of the generally deny right to create “ten- States by personalty except in ancies” au- by by policy we must statute, thorized abide by statutory language pre- it is altered until cisely more policy indicative of a shift in than lan- obliged guage we are to construe.2 I would construe PA No presumption create that the in action choses specified, payable when made to or held as indorsees assignees jointly are held rights with rather than in common unless, provided”. course, it is “otherwise therein nothing per- I find in that act which unitary personalty mits creation of a in interest is'implicit wife such as in an en- tirety tenancy realty and which such interest among other characteristics, becomes immune to the spouse’s Hoyt satisfaction of either sole debts. Winstanley, supra. By PA 1925, No 126 certain choses in action taken sale acquire legal do characteristics; but No Act read.it, as I does not extend the objective policy of Act No 126 to all such nor choses any others. Accordingly, my judgment it that the interest acquired by pay- defendants the debenture made able to them as Mesler, “W. Clark K. Marion Mesler, wife”, interest survivorship in each and not an interest common entirety. nor an interest Therefore, defend- ant Clark W. Mesler’s en- creditors were moiety titled to reach his determinable interest there- Mich England Joint Entirety in Por L Rights Rev 779 and 957 definitive and the States on this between Husband and Wife Personal expositions Property”, (1954), subject, and annotation 64 ALR2d statutory see Townsend, Personal and common law of “Creation of (1959). entitled, Property”, “Estate^ *9 Young De v. Mesler. denying in and ihe trial court erred in them relief they sought by proceedings following permitted by chapter judica- now 61 of the revised (CLS seq. § [Stat Arm ture act 1961, 600.6101 et § seq.]) et 1962 Rev 27A.6101 GCR 742. The order should be reversed and the case re- may manded. Costs be taxed. v. MANKEL.
PEOPLE Sufficiency Charge 1. Indictment Information — —Stat- utes. need, precise employed words not be used charging thereunder, equivalent an offense other words of meaning being sufficient.
2. Statutes —Criminal Law. setting Terms statutes forth the elements criminal offenses according ordinary usage are construed and common sense. Legislators Lexicographers. 3. Same — Not Legislators required lexicographers. are not to be 4. Same —Construction. judicially Statutes are etymo- not to be examined as exercises logical philological refinements. Indictment 5. Information —Medical Care Infants— Shelter. charged having Information pro- whieh defendant with failed to 3-year-old vide medical attention to his failing child physician obtain the mortally services while the child was held,, injured charge not to making offense under statute parent negligently unlawful for a deprive a child under the age years necessary food, clothing, of 16 (CLS or shelter 1961, 750.136). § [3] [4] [1] [2] [5] 50 Am 27 Am 14 Am 50 Am 50 Am 27 Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Statutes References Statutes Statutes Indictments and Informations Indictments and Informations Criminal Law 20. § § 260. 225 et for Points § seq. in Headnotes § 51 et 101. seq.