From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calhoun v. Calhoun

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 1, 1960
106 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. 1960)

Opinion

Docket No. 25, Calendar No. 48,275.

Decided December 1, 1960.

Appeal from Jackson; Simpson (John), J. Submitted October 5, 1960. (Docket No. 25, Calendar No. 48,275.) Decided December 1, 1960.

Bill by Thomas H. Calhoun, Jr., and others against Wilbert Calhoun, testamentary executor of the estate of Thomas H. Calhoun, Sr., to quiet title. Bill dismissed. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

William F. Goler, for plaintiffs.

Rosenburg, Painter, Stanton Bullen, for defendant.


Plaintiffs appeal from a decree dismissing their bill to quiet title. The case is here with a vague record of that which, in realty title matters, should not be difficult of certain proof by competent testimony.

The subject matter is a house and lot located on Argyle street in Jackson. Plaintiffs claim title thereto under — and solely by — an executory and allegedly paid land contract. The contract was executed by one Venton and wife, as vendors, to plaintiffs "Thomas H. Calhoun, Jr. and Fay Y. Calhoun, his wife," as vendees. The instrument bears date of January 14, 1944; recites a total sale consideration of $2,500; acknowledges a down payment of $500, and calls for instalment payments at the rate of $28 or more per month. No conveyance in fulfillment of such contract has ever been made.

The chancellor found, apparently from the visible difference of pens that were used in signing the words "Thomas H. Calhoun" and the word "Jr.", that the signature "Thomas H. Calhoun, Jr.", as it appears on the contract, was actually that of plaintiff's father, Thomas H. Calhoun. However, since there is no testimony either way tending to identify properly such signature, we shall assume as plaintiffs claim that the junior Mr. Calhoun, rather than the senior Mr. Calhoun, was one of the actual and intended vendees.

Whether Venton and wife ever at any time held an interest in the subject property was not shown. It was shown, by testimony of plaintiffs (which testimony the chancellor ruled was incompetent under the dead man's statute), that plaintiffs made all of the payments as indorsed on the payment record of the contract. As against such competent or incompetent testimony (a question we need not decide) the chancellor found that, by the nature and fact of such indorsements, "Mr. Calhoun, Sr., made the payments on the land contract." This brings our attention to defendants' proof.

CL 1948, § 617.65 (Stat Ann § 27.914). — REPORTER.

Defendant Wilbert Calhoun claims title to the property upon testimonial showing that the senior Mr. Calhoun occupied the property as his home from the date of the land contract until the time of his death (September 14, 1955); that the record owners of the premises (one Van Scoter and wife) deeded the property to the senior Mr. Calhoun under date of April 11, 1952 (the deed making no reference to any outstanding land contract), and that the senior Mr. Calhoun validly devised such premises to him.

In this equity case issues of fact only are presented. Defendants have established legal title to the subject premises by due conveyance and devise. Plaintiffs have failed to show that the land contract, upon which they rely, was executed by any one holding at the time a legal or equitable interest in such premises. They bear the burden of proving that they did acquire and now do possess some interest, legal or equitable, therein. Such burden not having been met, the chancellor could do naught but dismiss their bill.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

DETHMERS, C.J., and CARR, KELLY, SMITH, BLACK, EDWARDS, KAVANAGH, and SOURIS, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Calhoun v. Calhoun

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 1, 1960
106 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. 1960)
Case details for

Calhoun v. Calhoun

Case Details

Full title:CALHOUN v. CALHOUN

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Dec 1, 1960

Citations

106 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. 1960)
106 N.W.2d 158

Citing Cases

Boekeloo v. Kuschinski

In accordance with the general rule, plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must make out a prima facie case…

Appleton Trust v. Emmet Rd. Comm

Plaintiffs presented sufficient prima facie evidence that they did acquire and now do possess some interest,…