Hurlbut v. Britain
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Chancery. (See Walk. Ch. R. 454.) The bill was filed to' foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant, Britain, to the Detroit City Bank, June 20, 1839, and by Julius Eldred and others, receivers of the bank, appointed by the court of chancery, assigned to the complainant. Britain plead in bar that the mortgage was delivered to one Cullen Brown as an escrow and was never, in fact, delivered to the mortgagee by his authority.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chancery. (See Walk. Ch. R. 454.) The bill was filed to' foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant, Britain, to the Detroit City Bank, June 20, 1839, and by Julius Eldred and others, receivers of the bank, appointed by the court of chancery, assigned to the complainant. Britain plead in bar that the mortgage was delivered to one Cullen Brown as an escrow and was never, in fact, delivered to the mortgagee by his authority. The complainant filed a replication- taking issue upon this plea. Wheeler answered setting up title to the mortgaged premises in himself, b-y purchase on a…
1Opinion of the CourtGoodwin, J.
The cause has been argued in this court on the part of the respective defendants, upon the plea and answer, and also a point is taken and insisted upon by each, that even if the the plea and answer are respectively unsustained by proof, and therefore, not sufficient to bar the complainant’s *193bill, yet the bill itself is insufficient to authorise any relief, and does not present a case upon which a decree for the complainant could be founded.
Upon the part of the complainant it is insisted that the plea of Britain is not sustained by the proofs, and that the answer of Wheeler, with the proofs in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dows v. McMichaelNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chicot County v. DaviesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Niles v. LeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1912