TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reynolds v. Green

George W. Reynolds v. Sanford M. Green and others

Reynolds v. Green, 10 Mich. 355 (1862)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1862
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
10 Mich. 3551862 Mich. LEXIS 62
Headnotes
Bill to redeem from a conveyance claimed to foe a mortgage. The "bill was not filed until thirty-four years after the maturity of the mortgage, which the bill alleges to have remained unpaid, and twenty-four years after the grantee had sold and conveyed the land. A party seeking to redeem after such a lapse of time, is bound to show affirmatively in his bill such facts as will establish the instrument as continuing in force and subject to redemption. The bill showed that the grantee in the mortgage - conveyance, and those claiming under him, had claimed and disposed of the premises as absolute owners for more than twenty years, and that possession had been had under them. It averred that the possession had not been continuous and adverse for twenty years’ but did not sbow that it was taken within that time. No excuse was shown for „ the delay in applying to redeem, and it was AeZcZ/that the averments in the bill were too uncertain to found a right to redeem upon.
Summary
Appeal from Oakland Circuit in Chancery.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Campbell J.:

This is a bill filed to redeem. The instrument claimed to be a mortgage was made June 3, 1825, conditioned for the payment of $196, with interest, on or before December 3, 1826.

It appears by the bill that John Biddle, the grantee, sold the land to Daniel LeRoy September 10, 1836, and Daniel LeRoy conveyed by warranty deed to Robert LeRoy, June 23d, 1831. The defendants hold by a series of mesne conveyances.

¡¡¡The bill was not filed until about thirty-four years after the maturity of the mortgage, which is alleged to bave_ remained unpaid, and twenty-four years after the sale *357 by Biddle to LeRoy. A party seeking to redeem after such a lapse of time, is bound to show affirmatively by his bill such facts as will establish the instrument as continuing in force, and subject to redemption. The defendants demurred generally to this bill for want of equity. We think the demurrer well taken.

It appears affirmatively from the bill, that Biddle and his grantees have, for more than twenty years, claimed and disposed of the premises as absolute owners. It appears also that possession has been held under those titles; but it is averred- that it has not been continuous and adverse for twenty years. But it is not averred that it was taken within twenty years; [and continuous acts of ownership are shown for nearly twenty-five years. The averments in the bill are entirely too uncertain to found a right to redeem upon under such ckcumstances. No reason is shown excusing the delay, and we can not presume that any exists.

The decree dismissing the bill must be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1870–1871: 11884–1885: 11912–1913: 11934–1935: 118702026peak 1870 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baxter v. National Mortgage Loan Co.259 N.W. 630 (Neb. 1935)
  2. Baent v. Kennicutt23 N.W. 808 (Mich. 1885)
  3. Parkinson v. Parkinson143 N.W. 4 (Mich. 1913)
  4. Fargo v. Lovell2 Mich. N.P. 19 (Mich. Cir. Ct., 8th Cir. 1870)

Most recent

  1. Baxter v. National Mortgage Loan Co.259 N.W. 630 (Neb. 1935)
  2. Parkinson v. Parkinson143 N.W. 4 (Mich. 1913)
  3. Baent v. Kennicutt23 N.W. 808 (Mich. 1885)
  4. Fargo v. Lovell2 Mich. N.P. 19 (Mich. Cir. Ct., 8th Cir. 1870)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list