TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McKee v. Wilcox

Catharine McKee v. Henry Wilcox and another

McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358 (1863)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 30, 1863
Judges
Manning, Other
Citations
11 Mich. 3581863 Mich. LEXIS 34
Headnotes
A homestead may be claimed in land of which a party is in possession under a contract to purchase. In such a case the vendee, if a married man, can not alienate his interest in the land under the contract without his wife joining with him; and if he refuses or neglects to perform his contract, the wife may perform it for him. Accordingly where a married man, who was in possession of land not exceeding in quantity and value what is exempt from execution as a homestead, under a contract to purchase the same, surrendered and cancelled his contract of purchase without the assent of his wife, it was held that such surrender was invalid, and that the wife might file a bill in equity in her own name, and have a specific performance of the contract. The decree in such a case should be that the land be conveyed to the husband, but subject to a lien in favor of the wife for the amount she pays in fulfilling the contract. It is the duty of one who purchases land in the possession of a third person to inquire of him what claim he makes to the premises. And failing to do this, he takes the land subject to the equities of the person so in possession.
Summary
Appeal in Chancery from St. Clair Circuit. Complainant filed her bill against Henry Wilcox and Asa D. Dickinson, for the specific performance of a contract made by said Henry Wilcox, to sell and convey to Frederick McKee, complainant’s husband, a city lot in Port Huron. The contract was made January 3, 1856, and was for a consideration of $800, of which $200 was to be paid down and [the ballance in three annual payments. The bill alleged that said Frederick and complainant took possession of the land soon after the making of the contract, and occupied the same until November, 1859, when said Frederick surrendered the contract to Wilcox and left the State. Complainant has occupied the lot ever since. While said Frederick occupied the lot, he claimed it as a homestead, its value not exceeding $1000. The surrender of the contract was without the assent of complainant. Wilcox has since conveyed the lot to Dickinson, who took with, knowledge of the facts. The bill claims that only about $100 is due on the contract, on paying which, complainant asks a decree for the conveyance of the lot to her in her own right, or to her husband. Wilcox answered, alleging a consideration for the surrender of the contract by McKee. Dickinson also answered, claiming to be purchaser in good faith from Wilcox, and stating that “ at the time of said conveyance this defendant was wholly ignorant that any one beside the said Wilcox had or pretended to have any claim or interest in said premises, except that he was informed that a woman was occupying the house, and that proceedings ought forthwith to be instituted to put her out of possession, for the reason that she would pay no rent; and notice to quit was served upon her some time in the month of March, 1860.” The Court below dismissed the .bill, with costs, and complainant appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Manning

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

Manning J.:

The only question in this case is whether a homestead can be claimed in land of which a party is in possession under a contract to purchase,

The Constitution in giving a homestead as a right does not confine it to any particular estate or interest whatever in the land: — Art. 16, §2 — and the statute secures it to a person owning and occupying a house on land not his own: — Comp. L. §4500.

In Dye v. Mann, 10 Mich. 298 , in speaking of the constitutional provision we say, the Constitution, whatever may have been the intention of the pre-existing statute, we have no doubt was intended to secure against creditors a homestead to every family in the State. Not as a personal privilege of the debtor which to be made effectual would have to be ..claimed by him, placing him in an attitude to have his motive suspected, but as an absolute right necessary to the welfare of the household, of which the debtor should not be deprived, if an unmarried man, without *361 some act of Ms relinquishing Ms right, or, if a married man, without the joint conveyance of himself and wife.

If this view of the Constitution be correct, it is as incumbent on a court of equity as a court of law to give it effect when it can do so consistently with the well recognized principles upon which the court acts.

Equity sometimes to promote the ends of justice considers that as done which the parties have agreed to do. Where a party is in possession of land under a contract to purchase, it treats the vendor as a trustee of the title to the land for the vendee, and the latter as a trustee of the purchase money for the vendor, and following the law gives the same effect to the equitable estate thus erected that the law gives to the legal estate. Hence the vendee’s equitable estate on his death, in equity, goes to his heirs or devisees.

By a parity of reasoning, equity will protect it against the alienation of the husband without the wife joining with him, when the land is in the occupation of 'the husband as a homestead; and the wife of a husband who refuses or neglects to perform his contract, should be permitted to do it for him to save her interest in the homestead; as she may redeem a mortgage to save her right of dower in an equity of redemption. The Court, instead of dismissing the bill, should have directed a reference to ascertain the amount due on the contract, and decreed, on the payment thereof by complainant, a conveyance of the land to the husband subject to a lien, to be stated in the deed, to complainant, to the amount so paid by her.

Dickinson is not a bona fide purchaser without notice of the legal estate from Wilcox. He admits in his answer that, when he purchased, he was informed that a woman was occupying the house, and that proceedings ought to be instituted to put her out of possession. This woman was complainant; and it was his duty to have inquired of *362 her what claim she made to the premises: not having done so he took them subject to her equity.

Decree reversed, with costs, and cause remitted to the Court below for further proceedings.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 32 cases

View all citing references →
1871–1872: 21873–1874: 11875–1876: 21877–1878: 11879–1880: 21883–1884: 11885–1886: 21895–1896: 21901–1902: 21903–1904: 11907–1908: 11915–1916: 11919–1920: 11921–1922: 11925–1926: 11931–1932: 11933–1934: 11935–1936: 21937–1938: 11939–1940: 11943–1944: 11953–1954: 11955–1956: 11959–1960: 11967–1968: 118712026peak 1871 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kleinert v. Lefkowitz259 N.W. 871 (Mich. 1935)
  2. Allen v. Crane116 N.W. 392 (Mich. 1908)
  3. Riggs v. Sterling27 N.W. 705 (Mich. 1886)
  4. Snyder v. People26 Mich. 106 (1872)
  5. Lozo v. Sutherland38 Mich. 168 (1878)
  6. Tarrant v. Swain15 Kan. 146 (1875)

Most recent

  1. Barnes v. City of Detroit150 N.W.2d 740 (Mich. 1967)
  2. Childs v. Lambert323 S.W.2d 564 (Ark. 1959)
  3. Adams v. Evans72 N.W.2d 131 (Mich. 1955)
  4. Cross v. Commons59 N.W.2d 41 (Mich. 1953)
  5. Walker v. Woods13 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. 1944)
  6. Mathers v. Quinn1939 OK 95, 87 P.2d 331

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dye v. Mann, 10 Mich. 291 (1862) 42

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