TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pulezer v. Kucharzyk

Pulezer v. Kucharzyk, 74 N.W. 304 (Mich. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 1, 1898
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
74 N.W. 304116 Mich. 921898 Mich. LEXIS 647
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Equity — Adequate Remedy at Law. . A bill in equity will not lie to recover damages for the wrongful act of a depositary in suppressing a conveyance, there being an adequate remedy at law. 2. Same — Parties. All of the heirs of a decedent are necessary parties to a bill to establish a deed alleged to have been executed by him in his lifetime. 3. Same-?Right to Reliee. A bill in equity is properly dismissed where the complainant has by other means obtained all of the relief to which he is entitled, except damages for the wrongful act of the defendant, for which there is a complete remedy at law.
Summary
Appeal from Huron; Beach, J. Bill by Paul Pulezer against Ignace Kucharzyk and John Pulezer, Jr., to establish a deed and contract alleged to have been fraudulently withheld from record. Prom a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. The bill of complaint alleges that on November 20; 1880, John Pulezer, Sr., the father of complainant and defendant John, executed .a deed of 80 acres of land to defendant John; that, at the same time, the father, his wife, and son John executed a contract by which it was agreed that, when Paul became of age, John should deed one-half of the land to Paul, and that Paul and John were to take care of their mother and a brother who was an imbecile; that the deed and contract were given to defendant Kucharzyk to take to the office of the register of deeds, and have recorded; and that he did not record them, but kept and secreted them. The prayer of the bill is that such deed and contract be established, and for damages for the wrongful act of the defendants. Defendants filed a joint and several answer, denying the material allegations of the bill, and assert that no contract or deed was made, but that John Pulezer, Sr., at that time, executed a will, which Kucharzyk, at his request, deposited with the judge of probate. Proofs were taken, and the bill dismissed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Grant

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

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). John Pulezer, Sr., died November 28, 1880. Complainant, defendant John, their mother, and the imbecile son lived together upon the place after the father’s death until complainant became of age. It appears from the allegations of the bill, answer, and proofs that complainant, shortly after he became of age, and several years before this bill was filed, obtained from all the heirs except the imbecile brother quitclaim deeds of one-half the land, and that he also *94 quitclaimed the other half to John. He therefore obtained all the relief to which he was entitled except the interest of his imbecile brother, who is living, and the damages he claims. He has a complete remedy at law for damages if he is entitled to any, and the brother is a necessary party when he seeks to establish the deed and contract. The bill was therefore properly dismissed.

Decree 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.

1900: 11911: 11922: 11927: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Ætna Indemnity Co.133 N.W. 515 (Mich. 1911)
  2. Mack v. Village of Frankfort82 N.W. 209 (Mich. 1900)
  3. Fleming v. Conklin211 N.W. 638 (Mich. 1927)
  4. Stern Co. v. Friedman187 N.W. 281 (Mich. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Fleming v. Conklin211 N.W. 638 (Mich. 1927)
  2. Stern Co. v. Friedman187 N.W. 281 (Mich. 1922)
  3. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Ætna Indemnity Co.133 N.W. 515 (Mich. 1911)
  4. Mack v. Village of Frankfort82 N.W. 209 (Mich. 1900)

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