Lastly v. Cramer
Michigan Supreme Court
Case reserved from Michilimacinac Circuit Court. Ejectment. The suit was commenced in July, 1840. Lastly, the plaintiff, claimed title to the premises in controversy, under a mortgage of the same, executed November 2,1822, by one Puthuff to one Wheeler, and by Wheeler assigned to the plaintiff, August 19, 1829 ; and under a foreclosure of said mortgage, in the circuit court of the United States, in and for the county of Michilimacinac, in the late territory of Michigan,…
Read the full summary
Case reserved from Michilimacinac Circuit Court. Ejectment. The suit was commenced in July, 1840. Lastly, the plaintiff, claimed title to the premises in controversy, under a mortgage of the same, executed November 2,1822, by one Puthuff to one Wheeler, and by Wheeler assigned to the plaintiff, August 19, 1829 ; and under a foreclosure of said mortgage, in the circuit court of the United States, in and for the county of Michilimacinac, in the late territory of Michigan, sitting as a court of chancery, and a sale and conveyance of the premises to the plaintiff, on the 17th of February, 1835,…
1Opinion of the CourtWhipple, J.
The question submitted is, whether the action is barred by the statute of limitations of November 5, 1829, (R. L. 1833, p. 408.) This question is involved in some intricacy and doubt in consequence of the obscurity of the language, and the apparently conflicting provisions of the Revised Statutes of 1838, relating to this subject. We have no doubt respecting the intention of the legislature to subject this, and other like cases, to the operation of the act of 1829, notwithstanding its repeal by the Revised Statutes. That statute was founded in a wise policy; it was emphatically a statute of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hulburt v. MerriamMichigan Supreme Court · 1854