Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

114 Mich. 622

Converse v. Barnard

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1897

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1897-10-25

Bill by Costello C. Converse, administrator of the estate of James W. Converse, deceased, against Bertram W. Barnard and Mary J. Barnard, to foreclose a land contract and a contract supplemental thereto. There was a decree for complainant, and a sale made, after which, before confirmation, Mary J. Barnard petitioned for leave to file a bill of review. From an order denying the petition, she appeals.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1924

2 state decisions

Relies on Fournier v. Chisholm

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1897-10-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Grant, J.

¶1(after stating the facts). The very questions which Mrs. Barnard now seeks to raise were raised in her behalf by her solicitor of record by her demurrer and answer, and were passed upon by the court. She cannot now be heard to say that she had no opportunity for defense, and that she did not authorize the employment of Mr. Walker. But, upon the merits, her claim is unconscionable; utterly devoid of either equity or justice. It is conceded that the money was advanced by Mr. Converse, and used for the sole purpose of establishing a homestead. Whether Mr. Converse so understood, it does not appear, but this is immaterial. She has, therefore, no claim in equity to a homestead right as against either of the contracts between her husband and Mr. Converse. Fournier v. Chisholm, 45 Mich. 417.

¶2Decree affirmed, with costs. In addition to the regular costs, the defendant is decreed to pay as additional costs 6 per cent, interest on the amount of the sale from April 28, 1897, to the date of the entry of affirmance in this court.

The other Justices concurred.
/114/mich/622 · .json · Public domain