Volume 1 — Walker's Chancery Reports

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction, on a judgment creditors’ bill, on the ground that the execution which was returnable May 18th, 1841, had been returned by the Sheriff on the seventeenth day of that month.

This was a motion for the appointment of a Receiver on a judgment creditor’s bill. The motion was opposed, on the ground that the jurat did not state the person verifying the bill, to be the agent, or attorney of the complainants.

This was a motion to confirm a master’s report of sale for an instalment of interest due on a mortgage, and also for a further order to sell, for the principal, which had since become due.

This was an application for an injunction. The bill stated that, in 1889, and previous thereto, the complainants were indebted to the state of Michigan, in the sum of $500,000,'or thereabouts; and that, in February of that year, the bank became embarrassed, and stopped payment.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction. The complainant’s bill stated,. that one Cook of the town of Farmington, Oakland county, in which town the complainant resides, in February 1838, applied to the defendant Davis, of the city of Detroit, for a loan of money, and received $700, in the bills of the Farmers’ Bank of Genesee, and the Bank of Sandstone, institutions, nominally and professedly, banks under the general banking law of the state, but which were, in reality,…

This was a motion to set aside a Master’s report, for irregularity. The complainants bad filed their bill to have a statutory foreclosure of a mortgage declared null and void, and to redeem the mortgaged premises. The bill was taken as confessed against the defendants, who afterwards obtained an order of reference to a Master to compute and ascertain the amount due on the mortgage.

This was a motion to confirm tbe report of a Master on a reference to ascertain and report the names of the several creditors, and the amount due to each, under a deed of trust. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Chancellor.

This was a motion to set aside a Master’s report for irregularity. The Master’s summons was dated the 5th of December, 1841, was served on the 6th, and required the parties to appear before him on “ Wednesday the 7th December.” Wednesday was the eighth of December, and on that day the Master proceeded with the reference. The defendants did not appear on either day.

This was a general demurrer to a judgment creditor’s bill. The bill stated, that in March, 1841, the complainant obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court for the county of Oakland, against the defendants, Hubbard and Cooper, for $209.85, on which he sued out an execution on the 27th of April following, and placed it in the hands of the sheriff, whose return was in these words: “ That the said Diodate Hubbard had goods and chattels in his possession on which he had levied,…

This was a petition filed by the defendant Waite, for the purpose of setting aside a decree. The bill was filed October 3d, 1840, to foreclose a mortgage, bearing date June 4th, 1838, given by Waite to S. Blanchard, and assigned by Blanchard to the complainant. The bill having been taken as confessed against the defendants, a decree was entered December 7th, 1841, and the mortgaged premises were advertised to be sold March 18th, 1842, at which time the sale was adjourned.

This was a hearing on general demurrer. The bill was filed to stay proceedings at law, and to have a certain note and certificate oí deposite delivered up to be cancelled.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction. The bill states that the complainant, in 1839, mortgaged certain premises to the defendant, who, after the mortgage money became due, foreclosed the mortgage at law, and, on May 14th, 1841, obtained a deed.

This was a petition for the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of mortgaged premises. The complainants filed their bill' to foreclose a mortgage August 13th, 1839. Davis, one of the defendants, put in his answer April 3d, 1841, admitting the rights of complainants, and the amount due on the mortgage, and the bill was taken as confessed against the other defendants. The amount due May 10th, 1841, for principal and interest, was $16,465.87.

This was on exceptions to a Master’s report on a reference to take and state an account between the parties as copartners. The Master, in stating the account between defendant and the copartnership, charged him with $79.01, the amount of a judgment which, it was stated in the bill of complaint, he had. received for the copartnership.

<p>Practice in chancery in regard to the impeachment of witnesses the same as at law.</p> <p>Before the credit of a witness can be impeached by proof of inconsistency in his declarations, a foundation must be laid by questioning him on cross examination as to his former statements, that he may have an opportunity for explanation.</p> <p>Having laid this foundation, a parly may proceed without exhibiting articles of impeachment.</p> <p>Each party must pay for talcing down the cross examination of his adversary’s witness, as well as the direct examination of his own.</p> <p>A witness having been examined, after his examination is closed cannot be examined as to the same facts without an order of the Court; but he maybe as to other facts, or new matter arising out of the testimony of other witnesses.</p> <p>Divorce will not be granted upon the admissions of a party unsupported by evidence, but the amount of evidence required varies with the danger of collusion.</p>

This was a demurrer to tbe bill of complaint. The bill states that the complainant was an Indian trader at the Saut de Ste Marie. That in 1826 he had a claim of 1340 against the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, for goods sold to them, and for goods wrongfully taken by them.

This was a hearing on demurrer to a bill for specific performance.

This was a judgment creditor’s bill. The judgment was obtained in the Circuit Court for the county of Wayne, and an execution directed' to the sheriff of that county had been taken out and returned unsatisfied.

The bill in this case was filed to foreclose a mortgage given by Louis Dequindre to Joseph Cote, Magdalene Cote, and the complainant, Presque Cote, to secure a debt of between ten and eleven hundred dollars.

This was a hearing on demurrer. The bill states that complainant, in 1830, resided at Medina, in the State of New York, at which place he was extensively engaged in business as a tanner and currier, and dealer in leather, and that, at the solicitation of Zebulon Kirby, one of the defendants, he furnished him with a stock of leather, worth from one thousand to fifteen hundred dollars, and two hundred dollars in money, to go to Detroit and open a store in the leather business…

Motion to open a decree on bill taken as confessed, for a re-taxation of costs, and to set aside the Master’s sale of mortgaged premises. The bill was filed June 21st, 1839, and the subpeena personally served on the defendant, on the 27th day of the same month. The defendant stated in his affidavit, on which this motion was founded, that, soon after the commencement of the suit, he went to the city of Detroit, and employed, as he supposed, Messrs.

Motion to re-enter a decree, to enable the complainants •to appeal to the Supreme Court. A decree was entered March 18th, dismissing the complainants’ bill with costs. At the same time, notice was given of an appeal, and, April 25th, application was made to the Chancellor to fix the amount of the appeal bond, which was ordered to be in the sum of $100.

The bill in this case was filed to set aside a conveyance of real estate, for fraud. It states, that the complainant, on the 28th of August, 1840, conveyed to Mirza Chapin, one of the defendants, forty acres of land situate in Gene-see county, in consideration of a yoke of oxen, a cow, and forty acres of land situate in Wayne county.

This was an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing the Detroit and Pontiac railroad across the land of the complainant. The company was incorporated by the Legislative Council of the Territory of Michigan, March 7th, 1834; and the road, as located, passed over two out-lots of the village of Pontiac, belonging to complainant.

Motion to dissolve injunction. This was a bill filed by the Attorney General, under the act of June 21st, 1837, entitled “An act to provide for proceedings in chancery against corporations, and for other purposes.” It prayed for the appointment of a receiver, under the fifth section of the act, and that the bank might be dissolved, and be for ever deprived of its corporate rights, powers, privileges and franchises; and for such further or other order, as should seem meet,…

The bill in this case was filed to obtain the specific performance of a contract entered into by the parties on July 1st, 1839.

<p>This waá a bill to correct a mistake in a deed of two lots of land in the village of Ypsilanti. It appears that, on the 29th of December, 1832, the complainant sold to Hurd the lots referred to, and gave him a bond for a deed. The lots were described in the condition of the bond as situate in the township of Ypsilanti, on the east side of the River Huron, directly south of, and adjoining a highway running east and west across the river, a few rods north of the mills then owned by Mark Norris and Timothy Mclntire. The first lot was therein bounded as follows, viz: Beginning north thirty degrees west, one chain and fifty links from the northeast corner post of the headgate that lets the water from the east side of the dam, which supplies water to the aforesaid mills of Mark Norris and Timothy Mclntire, to the saw-mill canal leading from said dam to Norris Wood’s saw-mill, thence north sixty-nine degrees forty-five minutes east six chains and twelve links, thence south twenty-three degrees and thirty minutes east four chains, thence south sixty-nine degrees and forty-five minutes west four chains and eighty-nine links; thence north parallel to the centre of said canal to the place of beginning, containing by estimation two acres and thirty-two rods. The other lot beginning south sixty-nine degrees forty-jive minutes west, seventy-nine linlcs from the south-west corner of the first lot; thence south sixty-nine degrees forty-five minutes west, three chains and forty-two links; thence north thirteen and a fourth degrees east, two chains and thirteen links; thence north forty-four degrees fifteen minutes east one chain and fifty links; thence south forty degrees east, two chains and fifty-eight links to the place of beginning, containing forty-nine hundredths of an acre. The two lots were separated from each other by a strip of land seventy-nine links wide for the saw-mill canal; the larger and first above described lot lying east of the canal, and the other west of it. The alleged error in describing the lots in the condition of the bond, which error ran through all the subsequent conveyances, consisted in erroneously describing the beginning or northwest course of the lot lying east of the canal. It was described in the condition of the bond as north thirty degrees west, one chain and fifty links from the northeast corner post of the head-gate, that let the water into the canal, whereas the bill stated it should have been described as north twenty-three degrees fifteen minutes west, one chain and fourteen linlcs from the northeast corner post of the headgate. The several persons through whom the title had passed were made defendants, all of whom allowed the bill to be taken as confessed, except Timothy Showerman and Hiram Thompson, the then owners of the lots. They filed a joint and several answer denying all knowledge of the mistake, to which a replication was filed by complainant. The bill waived an answer under oath.</p>

The bill in this case was filed to recover the amount of a lost promissory note, for $500, dated March 12th, 1838, and made by the defendant Norton, payable to the defendants Stone and Everts, at the Bank of Niles, ninety days after date, and endorsed by them, and discounted by the bank. The note was lost after it became due.

This was a bill to redeem certain premises which had been sold, and bid in by one of the defendants. The defendant, Howard, obtained a judgment against complainant, in favor of Stewart the other defendant, for $3,425.24, on June 17th, 1839, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Michigan.

' This was a bill for a perpetual injunction to prevent defendant from erecting a mill-dam of such height as to overflow complainant’s land. Complainant is the owner of the east half of northeast quarter of section eighteen, town one north, range eleven east.

This was a petition under the statute to revive a judgment creditor’s suit against the personal representatives of the deceased debtor. The petition stated the filing of a judgment creditor’s bill against James Smith, jun., in his lifetime, the service of a subpoena on Smith, and his death before any further proceedings were had; and that Joseph Addison Smith had been appointed administrator.

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The complainant, January 31st, 1837, in consideration of $900, conveyed to Stone certain real estate situate in Auburn, Oakland county, and took back a mortgage on the same premises, for |800 of the purchase money. On the 24th day of August following, and before the mortgage to Thomas was recorded, Stone conveyed the premises to Graham by warranty deed, which was recorded on the same day.

Bill to remove a cloud on complainants’ title. The bill was filed June 11th, 1840, and stated that, by a treaty between the United States and the Chippewa Indians, concluded on the 24th of September, 1819, Moldtchenoqua alias Nancy Smith, (and since her intermarriage with Alexander D. Crane, Nancy Crane,) became entitled to a section of land near the Grand Traverse of the Flint river.

Petition under the act entitled “An act to authorize the conveyance of real estate of minors in certain cases,” approved February 28th, 1840. The petition stated that Melvin Dorr died in 1838, leaving a widow, Marion Dorr, and two children, Mary L. Dorr, by the said Marion, and George J. Dorr, by a former wife, ward of the petitioner; and that, afterwards, the said Mary L. Dorr departed this life.

Bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court.

<p>Petition for re-taxation of costs.</p>

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction, for want of equity in the bill.

Bill to set aside statutory foreclosure, or for leave to redeem. The bill states that, September 13th, 1836, a mortgage was given to Tunis S. Wendell, as trustee for Catharine Schwarz, to Nathan Sears, for $2,000.

Hearing on original and cross-bills. The original bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage executed by McDowell to Lawrence, in July, 1839, and assigned by Lawrence to Wing, in trust to pay certain creditors, and to account to Lawrence for the balance.

<p>Where time has been extended for the performance of conditions, a party seeking to avail himself of the extension, must allege a readiness to perform within the time as extended, and notice thereof.</p> <p>Where two persons have a lien on the same piece of property which is not sufficient to satisfy both, and one has a lien for his debt on another piece of property, he must exhaust the latter before he can resort to the common fund.</p>

This was a bill for specific performance. The bill states that complainant owned a farm in Bertrand, Berrien county Michigan, in the south half of the southeast fractional quarter, of fractional section eighteen, town eight, south of range eighteen west, containing eighty acres.

This was a bill for a partition of land. It is unnecessary to state the pleadings and testimony in the cause, as they will appear in the opinion of the Court.

The bill in this case was filed to obtain an admeasurement of water under the following lease : “ Article of agreement made and entered into this ninth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, between Mark Norris of Ypsilanti, county of Washtenaw and territory of Michigan, of the first part, and Alanson M. Hurd, of Detroit, in the territory aforesaid, of the second part, witnesseth: That the said party of the first part, for and in…

Demurrer to bill filed by complainants, as trustees for the state, under “ an act to provide for the collection of certain assets… Held: for and on account of them or any of them, in full payment and satisfaction of all debts and liabilities of the party of the first part, to the state of Michigan; subject, nevertheless, to all and any discrepancies in the accounts and demands, arising from errors or contingent claims, and also subject to all just charges of counsel…

The bill was filed, to foreclose a mortgage for $900, payable in one year, accompanied by a promissory note payable to the mortgagee, Hawkins, or order. Hawkins endorsed the note, and assigned the mortgage to Scully, before the note was due. The mortgage and note were given to Hawkins, to secure him in paying defendant’s debts ; and Hawkins, as appeared from the evidence, had, at different times, paid money for Scully,- to the amount of $788.

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction, on bill and answer. Complainant had granted to defendant the right of using the water in a creek,' which was the outlet of a small lake, for a mill to be erected by him, which was the sole, consideration of the grant.

Bill to foreclose a mortgage. On the first of October, 1836, Ulmann conveyed the mortgaged premises to Harvey Hunt and James M. Hunt, for $5,500. Two hundred dollars were paid down, and a mortgage and six promissory notes were given for the balance ; — one note for $300 and interest, payable January 1st, 1837, and the others for $1,000 each, payable, with interest, in one, two, three, four, and five years. The first two notes had been paid.

This was a bill to have a deed executed on a statutory foreclosure of a mortgage, given up and cancelled, on the ground that the mortgaged premises were redeemed, after the sale, and before the time of redemption expired.

This was a bill filed to establish a lost deed, and praying that the several defendants claiming under the grantor might be compelled to release to complainant. The facts of the case appear sufficiently in the opinion of the Court.

The bill states that Catharine Schwarz, wife of John. E. Schwarz, on the eleventh day of February, 1823, was entitled to one undivided third part of all the real and personal estate of her late father, Abraham Sheridan, deceased ; and that she and her husband, the said John E., on that day, by an indenture of two parts, conveyed to Isaac Wampole all her interest in the real estate aforesaid, for her sole use and benefit, and subject to her appointment ; and that, on the 14th…

Petition by a non-resident defendant, for leave to come in and defend a mortgage foreclosure. The bill in this case was filed to foreclose a mortgage given by Murphy and wife. A decree had been entered, and the premises were advertised to be sold by a Master. John J. De Graff, a non-resident defendant, presented a petition to be let in to defend.

This was a motion to set aside an order taking the bill as confessed.

<p>Where a petition was not signed by the petitioner, but was verified by an affidavit ' signed by her, which stated that she had read it, and knew the contents of it, and that it was true, it was held to be a sufficient signature of such petition.</p> <p>Where the subpcena was served on .the keeper of the state’s prison, instead of on the • defendant, who was confined therein, the service was held sufficient.</p> <p>When any party wishes to set aside the proceedings of his adversary for a more technical irregularity, he must make his application at the first opportunity; and a defendant who has not caused his appearance to be entered, is entitled to no more indulgence than one who has appeared.</p> <p>After a motion has been denied on its merits, it should not be renewed, without leave of the Court, on the same facts, or any new facts which might have been included in the first motion. The party must present all of his case at once, whether he have several grounds or not.</p> <p>Sentence to hard labor in any prison, jail, or house of correction, for three or more years, is a good ground of divorce under the statute.</p> <p>Upon the dissolution of a marriage by divorce, or sentence of nullity, for any cause excepting adultery of the wife, she is entitled to the immediate possession of all her real estate, in the same manner £is if her husband were dead.</p>

<p>This was a hearing on exceptions to a Master’s report.</p>

Hearing on plea to judgment creditor’s bill and motion for receiver.

This was a hearing on demurrer to a bill seeking relief against a judgment obtained before a justice of the peace. Trowbridge, one of the defendants, obtained a judgment against complainant, before a justice, on a joint and several note for $100, of complainant and one Hutchins, dated March 1st, 1838, and payable to Smith or order, six months after date.

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant, Horace Johnson, on the fourth day of February, 1837, mortgaged the premises to Daniel Windiate, and, on the 18th day of October following, he mortgaged them to complainant. On the 3d day of March, 1838, Windiate foreclosed his mortgage under the statute, and the two years’ redemption expired March 3, 1840.

<p>This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Bill to restrain a statutory foreclosure, and have the mortgage given up and cancelled. At the November term of the Circuit Court, for the county of Berrien, for 1838, one Shurte was convicted on three several indictments for larceny, and sentenced, on two of them, to pay a fine of $500 each, and the costs of prosecution, and on the other to a year’s imprisonment and costs.

<p>Rules of practice regulating the mode of applying for re-taxation of costs, and for setting aside the taxation for irregularity.</p>

Demurrer to a bill to set aside a sale on execution. A judgment was recovered in the Circuit Court for the county of Berrien, in April, 1840, by Jehiel Enos, against complainant, as principal, and one Johnson as surety, for 158.91 and costs of suit, and execution issued upon it to the sheriff, for $117.82, and levied upon the west half of the northwest quarter of section thirteen, town four south, of range eighteen west, and the north half of the northwest quarter of section…

Bill to have certain promissory notes delivered up and cancelled. April 8th, 1839, complainant purchased of defendant Starkweather, who was then clerk to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the west half of the northwest quarter of section sixteen, town six south, of range ten west, and executed to him the notes in question, payable to him or order, in part payment. The lot purchased was apart of the school lands belonging to the state.

<p>Motion for the appointment of a receiver, on a judgment creditor’s bill.</p>

<p>Where the alleged fraud set up in defence of a bill, consists of a variety of circumstances, it should be taken advantage of by answer, and not by plea.</p> <p>An assignee of a contract cannot insist upon fraud used in the making of the contract on the party under whom he claims.</p>

This was a bill for a settlement of partnership accounts between the complainant and defendant Horace R. Jerome. Edwin Jerome was made a party by reason of his claiming to be the owner of a bond and mortgage, executed by one Shepherd to Horace R. Jerome, which complainant was to pay, and which he alleged he had paid to H. R. Jerome, in their partnership dealings.

This was a judgment creditor’s bill. A motion was made for an attachment against Stewart, for not submitting to an examination before the Master, on an order for the appointment of a receiver; and for refusing to assign his property to the receiver.

At the last motion day leave was granted to complainant to dismiss his bill, on payment of defendant’s costs; and an order was entered dismissing the bill generally, without making any mention of the costs. The defendant, by petition, asked for an amendment of the order, so as to make the dismissal of the bill depend on the payment of his costs.

This was a bill for an account of copartnership property and effects.

This was a bill to rescind a sale of real estate, &c. The facts necessary to an understanding of the several points decided, are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Motion by complainant for leave to take testimony. A replication was filed to defendant’s answer, September 27th, 1843, but no order was entered for taking testimony, by either party, within the thirty days allowed by the fiftieth rule of the Court, after replication filed.

Demurrer to a bill of foreclosure. The bill sets forth a bond and mortgage of defendant and wife'jto complainant, dated June 3d, 1842, for $235. 06, payable, with interest, on or before the 15th day of November then next; and that the bond and mortgage were given to secure the payment of $235.06 due complainant on a judgment recovered in favor of one Sullivan R. Kelsey, against said Needham Hemingway, in the Circuit Court for the county of Oakland, on the 29th day of…

Motion on the part of Hale to take from the files a replication to his answer, because it was not filed within the time allowed by the rules of the Court. From the affidavits of defendant’s solicitor, it appears he never had any knowledge or notice that any replication was, or had been filed, to the answer of Hale, until he was looking over the files in the register’s office in January last, when he came across the replication.

Judgment creditor’s bill. A motion was made for an attachment against defendant, for not appearing before a Master to make an assignment of his property to receiver, and submit to an examination on oath relative to it.

Bill to foreclose a mortgage. The bill, after setting forth the mortgage, stated the execution of it was acknowledged in due form of law before Andrew Dorsey, a justice of the peace of Calhoun county, by all of the defendants; and that “the said Mary, Hannah, and Aurilla K. being examined by said justice separate and apart from their husbands, acknowledged that they had executed said indenture of mortgage without any fear or compulsion of their said husbands, as in and by…

Complainants filed their bill in this Court for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate, to which the defendant demurred; and the demurrer being allowed, (vide ante 99,) complainants appealed to the Supreme Court, where the order of this Court allowing the' demurrer was affirmed; and on the case being remitted for further proceedings, they presented their petition for leave to amend.

<p>A court of equity may relieve against the breach of a condition precedent in the nature of a penalty; and there is no good reason why it should not relieve against the breach of a condition precedent, when it would against a condition subsequent.</p> <p>The substantial difference which governs courts of equity, in cases of conditions, is not whether the condition be precedent or subsequent, but whether a compensation can, or cannot be made.</p> <p>The Court is not bound, in all cases where a compensation can be made, to give relief; for the party seeking relief may have so conducted himself as to have lost all claim to its interposition; but when this is not the case, and it is equitable under the circumstances that relief should be given, it is competent for the Court to give it.</p> <p>A bill, filed and sworn to by a person who is deceased, is evidence against his heirs to prove what might be proved by his declarations.</p> <p>In a suit respecting lands, where defendants were described in the bill as heirs of the father, when in fact they claimed as heirs of their mother, it was held, that they were properly made parties, as claiming an interest in the property in controversy; and that, if they wished to take the objection that their interest was not properly made to appear in the bill, they should have demurred; and that it was too late to raise it on the hearing, after proofs had been taken, and it appeared to the Court that the proper parties were before it.</p>

Bill to foreclose a mortgage. Before answer, and after filing his bill, complainant assigned all his interest in the mortgage, and defendant put in a plea stating that fact.

Demurrer for multifariousness. June 11th, 1S36, McKeen executed a mortgage to Oliver B. Hart, who, April 28th, 1841, assigned the mortgage to Alvin N. Hart, the complainant. December 25th, 1837, McKeen executed another mortgage to the defendant Goodrich.

Petition for temporary alimony, and for money to carry on a suit by complainant against her husband for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, on the ground of cruelty. Defendant’s affidavit, denying the charge of cruelty, was read in opposition to the motion.

Judgment creditor’s bill. Motion for an attachment against defendant for not appearing before John S. Abbott, one of the Masters of the Court, to submit to an examination on oath touching his property, and to make an assignment thereof to a receiver, in pursuance of the Master’s summons duly served on him for that purpose.

Bill to foreclose a mortgage. The bill states that Murphy, on May 1st, 1839, became and was justly indebted to the Bank of River Raisin, in the sum of $1,200, and that, to secure the same, he on that day executed a bond and mortgage to the bank, in the penal sum of $2,400, conditioned for the payment of $1,200 in one year, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum.

The complainants in the first above entitled cause, on October 17th, 1838, recovered the following judgments in. the Circuit Court of Hillsdale county, against the defendants, Samuel Camp and Boville Shumway, as partners : Calvin W. How and Fisher How, a judgment for $1,984. 97; William Bagley, a judgment for $871.80; Henry Suydam and Isaac H. Reed, a judgment of $622.37; and Solomon Warriner, Bushrod Birch, and Henry S. Whittemore, a judgment for $1,123.80.

In October, 1S40, Henry D. Garrison obtained a judgment against Eber Griswold, for $425.45 damages, and $41.69 costs, in the Circuit Court for the county of Berrien, on a note executed to Garrison in 1838, after Eber Griswold had married the widow Pool, by Hussey, Sanger and Mason, and guarantied by Eber Griswold, for a debt due from the widow Pool to Garrison previous to her marriage with Eber Griswold.

Complainant having waived an answer on oath, defendants’ solicitor put in several answers for his clients, subscribing their names to the answers. The cause after-wards being brought on for hearing on pleadings and proofs, complainant’s solicitor, on an affidavit stating he had just discovered the defendants’ names had been subscribed to their answers by their solicitor, and not by themselves, moved to have them taken from the files, and the bill taken as confessed.

In August, 1836, John Dixon, of Ontario county, New York, employed Seneca Hale, of Lenawee county, Michigan, to purchase government lands for him, and left with Hale $1,800, for which he took a receipt. On December 14th, 1836, John Dixon assigned all his property, real and personal, to complainants, in trust for his creditors.

Petition by Thompson for a rehearing. The petition stated that, on the 15th day of August, 1840, complainant filed his bill of complaint for the foreclosure of a mortgage; that defendants were duly served with process, and appeared, but failed to answer the bill, which was taken as confessed; and that, on the 31st day of August, 1842, a decretal order was made, adjudging and decreeing, among other things, that all and singular the mortgaged premises, or so much thereof, at…

Motion by defendants to suppress tbe testimony of one Whipple, a witness examined by complainant; and a cross motion by complainant for leave to prove the execution of a mortgage and deed, at the hearing.

Defendants brought an action of ejectment, in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw county, against complainant, for two undivided thirds of the west half of the southeast quarter of section 7, town 4, south of range 6, east, and obtained a verdict and judgment therefor, at the November Term of the Court, in 1842. January 13th, 1843, complainant filed his bill in this Court, and obtained an injunction restraining defendants from taking out execution on their judgment.

<p>It is improper for a Master to perform any official act, as Master, in a cause in which he is solicitor, or partner of the solicitor.</p>

Bill to foreclose a mortgage, dated June 20,1839, and executed by Britain to the Detroit City Bank. In December, 1839, the bank was placed in the hands of a receiver, who, on May 28th, 1842, sold and assigned the mortgage and accompanying bond to complainant.

Bill to foreclose a mortgage. The bill stated that, on July 25th, 1842, complainant became surety for the defendant Philomelia D. Parker, as endorser of certain promissory notes made and negotiated by her, to the amount of $5,944.73; that she, on the same day, executed and delivered to him a bond in the penal sum of $11,900, conditioned to save him harmless against the payment of said notes, and two mortgages on real estate in Jackson county, as security for the performance…

Motion to dissolve injunction on bill and answer. Jacob Beeson, being the owner of five several lots of land, — say Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, — in June, 1834, mortgaged them to George Kimmel for |1,000, payable in five years, with interest; which mortgage was duly recorded.

The bill was in the usual form, and stated that, in June, 1840, previous to the rendition of the judgment, which was in the name of Joseph W. Brown, the said Brown, for a good, sufficient, and valuable consideration, assigned, sold, and transferred to complainant the claim upon, and for-the recovery of which, the judgment was obtained; and that complainant was the absolute owner of the judgment so recovered.

Petition by complainant for an order vacating an appraisement and set off of real estate on a fieri facias, under the “act to provide for the transfer of real estate on execution, and for other purposes,” approved-February 17, 1842, and for a sale of the premises on the execution.

In November, 1838, complainants obtained a judgment against Moses B. Savage and William Savage, as partners, for $1,852.67 damages, and $21 costs, on which an execution was taken out and returned unsatisfied.

Original and cross bills. The first is filed for the foreclosure of a mortgage on forty acres of land, executed by Cyrus Miller to Laura W. Whitney, on the 25th of October, 1838, for the payment of $529.20, with interest, by the first day of January, 1841, for which amount a promissory note was at the same time executed by Miller.

<p>Motion to take a plea of the defendant, Burgess, from the files, because it was not sworn to.</p>

<p>Motion to amend an injunction bill, so as to waive answer under oath, no answer having been filed.</p>

<p>Motion to dissolve injunction on bill and answer. The facts necessary to understand the case are set forth in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Motion to dissolve injunction for want of equity in the bill.

Motion to dissolve injunction for want of equity in the bill, by complainant, as surviving partner of the firm of Fitch & Gilbert. The bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage; and stated that no valid proceedings.had been had to collect the same.

Judgment creditor’s bill, to have a judgment paid out of equitable assets belonging to the debtor, and to set aside certain conveyances as fraudulent against creditors. The bill sets forth that the complainant, Elisha Beach, November 11th, 1840, obtained a judgment against Jonathan R. White, in the Circuit Court for Oakland county, for $473.79 damages, and $40.65 costs.

Bill for specific performance. The bill states that, December 10th, 1839, complainants obtained a judgment, in the Circuit Court for the county of Oakland, against Robert Le Roy and Samuel C. Munson, on a bill of exchange drawn by them in favor of complainants, on Daniel Le Roy, for $1,499.04 damages, and $23.42 costs.

This was a bill to restrain defendant from diverting water from complainant’s land; and for specific performance of an agreement, or a reconveyance of certain privileges.

About the year 1802, one Charles Chene, a resident of Detroit, died in possession of a farm constituting the front of what is now known as the De Garmo Jones farm, west of the city. He left three sons, — Pierre, the eldest, Toussaint, the second, and Gabriel, — and one daughter.

It appeared from the affidavits on which the motion was founded, that one Parks, who was not a party to the suit, was in possession of a part of the premises; that he had but recently taken possession under one of defendants; and that he refused to deliver possession to the purchaser, on being shown the Master’s deed, and a certified copy of the order confirming the sale.

<p>When a defendant, who might, by demurrer or plea to the whole bill, have protected himself against a particular discovery, submits to answer the whole bill, he must answer as fully as in any other case.</p> <p>When irrelevancy is made a ground for refusing to answer a particular question, or part of a bill, it should appear that an answer to such part would, in no aspect of complainant’s case, as made by the bill, be of service to him.</p>

Motion to dissolve injunction. The bill in this case was filed to restrain proceedings at Jaw on a promissory note, executed by Solomon Sutherland, Thomas M. Sutherland, and complainant.

Motion on the part of the administrator de bonis non, in each of the above cases, to stay proceedings on an execution issued for a balance reported to be due from the intestate’s estate, after sale of mortgaged premises by Master under decree.

The injunction was granted on January 24th, 1845, and, on the same day, served on defendant, commanding him “ absolutely to desist and refrain from making any conveyance of, or creating any incumbrance or lien whatever upon,” certain premises described in the writ; and that he should “absolutely refrain and desist from any interference whatever with the said land, real estate and premises, or the appurtenances to the same in anywise belonging,” until the further order of the…

On March 15th, 1839, complainant applied to defendant Prentiss for a loan of $300, which Prentiss agreed to make, provided complainant would allow him $100 for the use of it till October then next; which terms complainant accepted, and it was agreed between them that the whole sum of $400 should be embraced in two notes of $200 each, signed by the complainant and some other person, upon which judgments should be confessed before a justice of the peace, and execution stayed.

<p>Bill for a divorce for adultery.</p> <p>Defendant not having appeared in the cause, the papers were submitted to the Court, by</p>

The bill in this case was Sled December 13th, 1842, to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant Clark, to complainants, on the 20th day of August, 1839, and recorded on the 23d day of September following. The mortgage was given to secure a judgment for $1,462.09, recovered June 20th, 1838, by complainants, against Clark and one Joseph McCrary, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Michigan.

William Wilmot, deceased, in his lifetime, being seized of two equal undivided third parts of the W. half of N. E. quarter of section 19, T. 1 8., R. 6 E., on the 8th day of February, 1831, mortgaged the same to Stephen Goodman for $200. Goodman, in July, 1832, assigned the mortgage to Mrs. Fuller as security for $127.