*1 Clingеnpeel 497 Hill. breaking of the toe hold. There was no error in this respect.
Assignments rejection on the admission and of testi- mony have been examined and found to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed, plaintiff. with costs to Sharpe, Steeke, J., Fellows, C. Wiest, Clark, and JJ., McDonald, Bird, J., concurred. did not sit.
TAPIN KRAMER. by Instruments —Deeds—Estates Entireties Cancellation Incompetenoy — — Influence Mental . Husband —Undue Wife. by sisters, a wife’s brothers and In. suits cоmmenced set) aside, grounds death, after undue in- incompetency fluence, inducement, mental fraudulent years by which, previous death, prop- six to her deeds erty, husband, conveyed her first inherited from entireties, and second husband as tenants herself dismissing of the court below is af- the decree bills equally divided court. firmed Wayne; (George P.), Codd from Appeal J. Sub- (Docket 5, 6.) January 21, 1926. Nos. Re- mitted May 3, Decided April argued 1927. 1927. Tapin Philip H. and others and John L. Bills Anthony against Kramer Tapin another set 3113; Error, Wife, Appeal § 4 J. Husband and C. C. J. 313. § 238 —Mich.—32. Reports. [May consolidated. were cases deeds. The' certain
aside bills, appeal. dismissing plaintiffs a decree From *2 court. by equally divided Affirmed Young- and Lucking Auken Lucking, Hanlon, & Van Younglove, Lyle Lucking Chockley and (William, &love counsel), plaintiffs. of Colombo,
Colombo, for defendant. & Colombo being pur in J. These two identical suits Steere, by pose were, substantially pleadings con in and alike court, and parties consolidated sent of and order of together. brothers and plaintiffs heard The are seven Kramer, wife, Arline sisters of defendant’s deceased named Tapin, formerly née a man married to but 1915, Hoffman, May, his1 Louis E. Van who died in at many leaving Detroit, home in her his estate valued September 12, 1916, thousands dollars. On defendant, married who several was widower with later, children. five on Between four and months January Monnig 31, 1917, to' one R. she deeded Edwin alleged Detroit, all city her real in in estate the bills and in have a value admitted to answers excess, $50,000, joined in in and with defendant deeding a comparatively lot of his of to small value Monnig, promptly properties who to deeded back holding by them as husband and He wife entireties. only figured in the conduit to transaction a title effect that result. She died without January, Following death, plain issue either husband. tiffs, heirs, as her proceedings to instituted these gave obtain cancellation of the deeds she so on the grounds of influence, incompetency, undue mental fraudulent plain inducement. The court dismissed tiffs’ testimony bills at the close of their on defendant’s motion, appealed. have court,
As only testimony these come to cases this Krameb. produced by plaintiffs. is us The have before we interposed type, was of technical based en- defense propositions First, law. tirely on when case called, plaintiffs’ an oral motion dismiss followed, bills, properly denied, which was as the hear- ing objections against progressed, various untenable plaintiffs’ testimony, out motions strike when rested defendant was content to rest on a motion in the of a case nature demurrer their testimony for dismissal of their The inad- bills. visability trying chancery, of that method of a suit be heard de novo on the record appeal must below, by many made the court is illustrated state- of claimed facts in ments defendant’s brief without pages reference to where found which we search the Typical this, record in vain. is said *3 in his counsel’s brief: “The apрellee defendant and parcels, contributed two
a corner at Gratiot avenue near Seven Mile road and Seyburn the avenue approximately $20,000. home worth He and the decedent later sold the Gratiot avenue $5,000.” corner for only
The record discloses defendant contributed the Gratiot avenue lot on near Seven Mile road. A wit- Keys, ness named familiar with that who subdivision, qualified and testified realty to values of m that local- ity, that property said when the was subdivided and put on the market front lots in that subdivision were $1,500, sold for opinion they his had increased in value about or Asked, since. $300 $400 cross- examination, if he knew Mr. Kramer lot sold that June, 1916, $5,000, replied, he “I don’t know it.” “Seyburn The so-called avenue home” is shown to have been defendant’s home where he resided with family, his to which he toоk deceased when honeymoon returned from their trip. Whatever the may be, facts the record fails to disclose that he ever owned it conveyed any it to one. Reports. [May. testimony that in this transaction
Plaintiffs’ showed conveyed Monnig by separate deeds three deceased including One, south- property in three locations.' Elliott Mt. of Forest and west and northwest corners covеring property in subdivision avenues, another of north part and Beaufait farm of the Meldrum conveying 326, Boule- avenue, lot and a third Jefferson claim part private land Park vard subdivision These and Mack avenue. between Waterloo street appraised con- buildings upon them were with the testimony expert siderably $200,000 above prices property in those witnesses familiar with localities. testimоny first appears when her
It from the estate, some contest over husband died there was was with and of which she counseled in the settlement building Majestic attorney represented by in the waiting occasions when named Devine. On several stenographer him she told his in his office to see Hoffman left her property income from Van her month, per approximately $1,500 and when was finally intended told hеr that she closed she estate was leaving property sisters. to make will testimony as to the income to like effect There is other than once property more of the and that she said her brothers her estate to she intended to leave sisters. Hoffman, husband, Van first
Deceased’s many engaged grocery years and saloon business *4 living avenues, Elliott of Forest and at the corner Mt. his store. worked in rooms over She with deceased saloon, in his store and both with him in his business substantially of his him in the accumulation aided and however, great which, of resulted value property, and increase in value of growth of Detroit from the requested his death she after Soon his real estate. to her Lampson to move and husband her sister Clara Kramer. at the store corner Forest home over her, thеy live with did. While Mt. Elliott and caring Lampson they her in for lived there assisted collecting looking rent, repairs, after property, shortly They until after her etc. remained there marriage defendant, then looked after to who rent. return from property and collected the On month, honeymoon trip, she which lasted about their children at his defendant went to live with Seybum continued to do so until avenue and home on very friendly always been with had her death. She visiting them back and sisters, her brothers presents, making and their children forth, them financially, them con- helping so some times convey- the time she executed the about tinued until question. Previous to that time she had ances and lot on contract house Maxwell purchased under it, paid $1,900 all $3,700 and but about on for avenue give intending, said, that she would it to her as she mаny Lampson and sister Clara pay- her. made had done She some favors little marriage, and, 27, 1917, June on it after ments stating sorry them, that she assigned to she regard paying had said in do she not could kéep up payments thereafter it, must but could, would, help as she them time such until out. physical bearing upon deceased’s mental and
As the time she approximating executed condition part in the latter question, it was shown that deeds December, 1916, was stricken with a serious acutely over her face and most erysipelas, attack involving her shoulders and arms. A but also neck named Lillian experience, Mrs. M. practical nurse for her. care She testi- employed Chilton, was and when having met deceased called previously fied holidays in shortly after the 1917 she to her home *5 Michigan Reports. [May very suffеring sick, erysipelas, with from her found neck, familiar; her was which was which witness straight face, nearly face, her and her were so scarcely recog- swollen and discolored that she was on her nizable. Mrs. remained attendance Chilton left, said, principally about three she weeks her disturbance because in connection with mental handle;” her “she more I that when was than could suffering highest temperature was and she was delirious, actively out her most she would become following mind, insisting getting bed, wit- out irrationally talking around, wild and difficult ness pacify one deceased’s or control. occasion On be “healer” would husband told some kind day, describing and to there him as “uncouth” go room when he up allow him Kramer’s Mrs. had a came. about noon. He The “healer” came long impressed beard, spoke English poorly wit- very led him to Mrs. ness as uncouth. she When pull shades proceeded to down the Kramer’s room he not which witness did and wanted to the door close permit he conducted his stood in the door while but ministrations, healing as she ob- operations. His hands, gesticulations them, served with his consisted nothing face, saying passing them over Mrs. Kramer’s grumbling.” a “kind she could understand but with patient “kind of rest- results, As to said thе was she got composed. She less before and afterwards she quite speak did not a while after.” Of during there, patient’s the time she was wit- condition during period temperature this ness said had a “She and neck of three This condition of face weeks. there; very was. all I was little lasted the time pay from better received her de- when I-left.” She there, each week while she was fendant at the end of some- paid three times. and said she was She gave January 21,1917, dates, what uncertain about but Kramer. *6 when, said, there, a date she was and “She seemed as than when I came.” little weaker when I left a proof attending have no direct of the circum- We condition at stances of deceased’s the time of question. execution of the deeds The deeds which January, all she executed were dated before the end of February, and about the middle of recorded opinion 1917. It of the trial court that no was influence, coercion, undue unfair or fraudulent conduct part defendant, incompetence on the or mental executing deeds, at deceased the time of was shown; they presumptively valid, plain- that were and having prima case, tiffs failed to even makе out facie it was incumbent the court to dismiss their bill. ages any parties
We are not advised of the of the litigation. fairly to this It is inferable from the years all record that were adults of mature and past some middle life. all Deceased’s sisters were mar- ried, children, some least had and she had been many married to a husband whom she assisted years grocery business, in his retail and saloon and during fortune, who timе had accumulated a experience he left to her. Her business ability, shown, housekeeping so far as was limited to helping grocery him and around his and saloon. any experience dealing is not She shown have had acquired any property with real or to estate have ex-. cept that left her her first husband. Defendant’s calling, previous, career, and financial circumstances beyond year are not shown the facts that less than a long and a half after her first died and not settled, leaving after his estate had been his fortune, he married her then a and was widower with family, about four months later able to con- tribute to of their the combination fortunes involved $2,000 against a vacant lot valued at here about quarter contribution claimed to be worth over a Repoets. [May testimony dollars, fairly shown a million carry it an approximate that amount manipula- By this $15,000. annual income about of the management titles, and usufruct tion of they both property legally his while become would lived, assuming uncommon the not he entertained himself, he had the belief that men mortal but all are ultimately be temptation all would ab- further lived) legally solutely both his. While property. enjoyment stripped of the of all beneficial mortgage, manage, sell, or realize neither She could it, through generosity or except the income from *7 obligation support could she marital to her. Neither contingency dispose any except of it on the will understanding surviving was of her him. What gift shown, question involved. is not but no of a is consideration, a and on face the He contributed the proceeding purports, to be a business transaction. acquires possession “Whenever a of the separate property or with- wife, of his whether with consent, out her it in he be deemed to hold trust must any for her in evidence benefit the absence of direct gift that she of it to him.” 13 intended to make p. R. L.C. 1387. See, also, Stickney, (9 227 Stickney 131 U. S. v. Sykes City Savings Bank, 677); 115 Mich. Sup. Ct. v. 562). (69 Rep. Am. St. 321 undisputed It stands were soon after through married defendant the оbtained from deceased conveyances complete in here of and a issue control paramount large beneficial interest in the estate individually for, married, owned when were insignificant shown, wholly inadequate so far as consideration. general principle
The we find of this case decisive leading Boyd is well in stated the case of 197), Montagnie, (29 De La Rep. Y. 73 N. 498 Am. as follows: Kramer. equity jurisdiction interpose “A court will its persons occupying
set aside instruments between re- may party naturally lations which one exercise influence over the conduct of another. A husband occupies wife, equitable such a relation to the and the principles to apply respect referred to would to them in gratuitous husband, the wife to transfers the might ordinary transactions, however it be business may legally engage in. the When this which relation exists wife obtaining person the the must benefit show, and evidence, gift freely that the the clearest deliberately upon The burden is show made. taking gift person, the transaction cases). Hence, (citing law, proper was fair and with only providence, not watches over all a wise parties predicament, in this but it often transactions interposes void, which, transactions be- to declare objectionable. persons, would not be held other tween bearing hardship consider not so much It does the. particular cases, doctrine, upon as it does of its general public mischief, preventing a importance of brought by means, may in- about secret and be which accessible, scrutiny, dangerous judicial from the arising confidential relation of the from the influences parties.” statutory removal of wife’s common-law
toAs Darlington’s Appeal, disabilities, it is said Pa. 726): (27 Rep. Am. St. rights long and disabilities as their common-law *8 “So statute, hardly there could have unaffected were been occasion but when application them; of those to rules to married women secure their statutes right enjoyment disposal, of its property, with ought they need and when have the arise occasions protection for the of rules established of full benefit give the relations to others latter the persons, whose exerting of an undue influence over means power and conveyance of a The wife’s estate for the former. void, will be held unless it afirmar use husband’s attending circumstances, the lively appears, from voluntary act and not in- otherwise, it was that influence.” by his undue duced Reports. [May- general import may found be
Language like of jurisdictions. The variety cases other a of from subject comprehensively with numerous discussed is 1367, 411, part as p. citations in R. L. § C. follows: parties, “Owing between the connection to the near con- many relations, in itself is the transaction proof of suspicious the burden sidered so on the he has edge, as to cast it, person support that to show who seeks advantage knowl- of his influence or no taken arrangement fair is and conscien- that the recognized tious. that most dominant So it is wife, over influence and from all relations is that jealously early courts date the have a prevent them to scrutinized transactions between wife from due being un- overreached or defrauded husbаnd; and improper of her influence or conduct in order to which the husband sustain transaction wife, the property secures for his benefit law imposes ar- burden him to that show
rangement no fair and conscientious arising improper out use was made of confidence marriage of the relation.” general has more This court than once indorsed that jurisprudence. principle equity rule аs In Hutton, Pritchard 187 Mich. v. is said: frequently “This court has said the relations fiduciary parties may between be a such as raise a relation, presumption undue and in such case a frequently explana influence tion. arises calls! presumption Such is one of In re fact. Conklin, 210; Estate, McMaster’s 163 Mich. Conklin v. 571; Estate, 165 Mich. Ha 183 Mich. In re rtlero de's 51.” Conklin, supra, In Conklin it was of the de- said physician fendant who was a relative and the of a deceased testatrix: “The relations of defendant testatrix Conklin to
raised a presumption of influence call which would *9 Kramer. explanation part. Bromley’s Estate, on his In re 53; Cooper 113 Mich. Harlow, Mich. 210.” equities Appealing to the defendant behalf of children,” “the minor future of it is said in his counsel’s brief: plaintiffs “What have these done or contributed to- Nothing. property her first hus- property?
wards this This acquired by through Hoffman Mrs. Van gift band. None of was obtained it descent from blood relations.” only Neither was it from his. His contribution beyond nothing compara- theirs of lot was a vacant tively proposition small equities, value. On that any, badly if are not out of balance. With the deeds canceled, involved here defendant’s second matrimonial proved fairly profitable, venture has and above the average. By Deceased diеd issue. without our gets statute of descent and distribution of estates he half approximately $250,000 of an estate deceased her, owned when he married so far has, as the testimony shows, $75,000 realized about from it while she lived. foregoing
For appealed reasons the decree from grant- should be reversed and a decree entered herein ing prayed plaintiffs’ bill, for in relief with costs them. J., JJ., and Snow C. con-
Sharpe, McDonald, curred J. Steers, I J. have not reached the conclusion an- Wiest, '
nounced Mr. Justice Steere. Mrs. Kramer was mentally competent deeds; to execute at least there is incompetent. no evidence that she was No in- undue fluence was and no fact from shown disclosed might, degree, in the remotest be inferred. If place properties husband and wife wаnt their so will hold tenants the entireties are at *10 Reports. [May- 508 288 all the liberty owns If the wife to do so. perfect will, be held property may, cause Mrs. the entireties. as tenants husband years creation of the after Kramer lived Six show- in this record not a word and there is tenancy, not in full accord ing had been done what inequalities may not consider with her desire. We subjected by property rights, desire of entireties, equitable holding by as an wife to ground setting the aside. same affirmed, costs to defendant.
The decree is JJ., concurred with Bird, Fellows, Clark, Wiest, J.
HEMPHILL v. ORLOFF. Appeal Judgment — 1. Error Trial — on Directed Verdict Requested Both Parties. ' parties, reservation, both without for a Where asl£ neither, verdict, review, may directed insist gone jury, judgment,, case should have and the supported by evidence, if substantial must be affirmed. Paрer Dealings 2. in Commercial Not Commerce — Interstate Foreign Corporations. Commerce — Dealings paper in commercial are transactions in in- not commerce, and terstate it cannot be said that the statute (2 Comp. seq.), requiring foreign Laws § 9063 ef dealing corporations paper in such in this State to obtain license, imposes a burden on interstate commerce. 627; “Appeal Error, 2625, 2872; Trial, 4 3 C. J. C. § §§ J. “Commerce, Cyc. p. 1583; (Anno), (Anno); 12 38 C. J. 36 §§ 153 262; 523; 1169; L. R. 15 A. R. 1331; A. L. 27 A. L. R. 30 A. L. R. 1014; Supp. 416; Supp. A. L. R. R. C. L. 4R.C.L. 490; Supp. 412; Supp. 5 R. C. L. 6 R. C. L. 454.