Lenawee County MI Archives Court.....Carroll, V. Van Rensselaer 1837
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/mi/mifiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 August 9, 2008, 7:26 am

Source: Cases In Chancery
Written: 1837

CASES IN CHANCERY.
FIRST DISTRICT.

Charles H. Carroll and others v. Robert Van Rensselaer and
others.

The vendor of real estate has an equitable lien upon the same for the purchase 
money, where there is no security for its payment taken. (a.)

The bill in this case was filed December 9, 1839, and stated that November 8, 
1836, complainants were seized and possessed, in their own right in fee 
simple, of certain lands and premises situated in the county of Lenawee, in 
the State of Michigan; that they sold the same to Peter Stuyvesant, of the 
city of New York, for the sum of $12,284.00, and executed and delivered a deed 
therefor in due form of law; that $5,174.54 was paid on the execution and 
delivery of the deed, and at the same time Stuyvesant delivered to 
complainant, Charles H. Carroll, a bond, executed by John Catlin, bearing date 
September 2, 1835, for the sum of $7,197.10, payable September 22, 1838, 
bearing interest at six per cent, payable semi-annually, which bond was 
assigned and guaranteed by Stuyvesant, with the understanding and agreement 
that, if the money secured by the bond should be paid to Charles H. Carroll, 
the same should be applied in liquidation of the balance of said purchase 
money; that July 30, 1839, Stuyvesant conveyed the lands and premises to 
Robert Van Rensselaer. The bill charges Van Rensselaer with full notice of all 
the facts; and also charges the conveyance from Stuyvesant to Van Rensselaer 
to be fraudulent, and that Stuyvesant and Catlin are insolvent, and that there 
yet remains due of the purchase money about the sum of $8,222, for which a 
lien is claimed.

An answer was put in by Van Rensselaer, which was subsequently withdrawn and 
the bill taken as confessed.

The complainants asked a decree that the amount of the purchase money 
remaining due from Stuyvesant to complainants shall be a lien on the premises, 
and that defendants redeem the premises by the payment of the sum remaining 
due within a cer tain time, or, in default thereof, that all and singular the 
premises be sold, etc.

A. D. Fraser, for complainants. 

The proposition that the vendor of real property, who has not taken separate 
security for the purchase money, has a lien for it on the land as against the 
vendue and his heirs, is too well settled in this country to admit of 
discussion, subject indeed to be defeated by alienation to a bona fida 
purchaser without notice. (Brown v. Gilman, 4 Wheat, 255, and notes; Bayley v. 
Greenleaf, 7 Wheat., 46.) This doctrine is fully examined by Lord Elden in the 
case of Mackreth v. Symmons, 15 Ves., 329. And the result of his investigation 
is

1st. That generally speaking there is a lien.

2d. That in those general cases in which there would be a lien, as between 
vendor and vendee, the vendor will have the lien against a third person who 
had notice that the money was not paid. He adds, these two points seem to be 
clearly settled. Chancellor Kent, also, in Garson v. Green, 1 Johns. Ch., 308, 
recognizes this doctrine. Reference is also made to the following cases: 
Hughes v. Kearney, 1 Sch. and Lef., 132; Nairn v. Browse, 6 Ves., 752; Gilman 
v. Brown, 1 Mason, 191.

The Chancellor.—The vendor of real estate has unquestionably an equitable lien 
upon the same for the purchase money, where there is no security for its 
payment taken. The complainants are entitled to take their decree in the form 
suggested.


-----------------------
(a.) See Payne v. Atterbury, post, 414; Palmer et al., appellants, 1 Doug. 
Mich., 422; Sears v. Smith, 2 Mich., 243; Mowrey v. Vandling, 9 Mich., 39; 
Converse v. Blumrich, 14 Mich., 109.

Additional Comments:
CASES DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
BY ELON FARNSWORTH, Chancellor 

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/mi/lenawee/court/carroll45gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/mifiles/

File size: 4.4 Kb