Unknown County MI Archives Court.....Goff, Vs Thompson 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, 6:28 am

Source: Cases In Chancery
Written: 1837

CASES IN CHANCERY.

Aaron Goff and Others v. John Thompson and Others.

Consideration: Agreement to support. An agreement by a daughter and her 
husband to support her father during his natural life, is a sufficient 
consideration for a conveyance of the father's lands to the daughter.

And after the death of the father, the agreement having been fully performed, 
the conveyance will not be set aside to give effect to a previous will made by 
the father, notwithstanding the daughter had attempted, by deed executed by 
her alone, to reconvey the lands to the father as security for his support.

Deed of married woman void. Such a deed, executed by a married woman without 
her husband joining with her, is void. (a.)

Bill by the devisees of Richard McCurdy (who was deceased), to set aside a 
conveyance of land which he had made to Diana Thompson, his daughter, the wife 
of John Thompson, and dated September 27, 1834. The bill charged Thompson and 
his wife with fraud in procuring said deed, and alleged that afterwards (in 
December, 1834), on said Richard threatening legal proceedings to set the same 
aside, said Diana executed, acknowledged and delivered to him a deed to 
reconvey the same lands, in which deed her husband did not join, but said 
Richard, who was an ignorant man, received the same, not knowing that the 
husband's joining therein was necessary; that in the following September said 
Richard died, leaving a last will, under which complainants claimed, and which 
had been duly proved. The bill prayed that the deed to said Diana might be 
decreed to be void and ordered to be delivered up to be canceled, and that an 
account might be taken, etc.

The answer fully denied all fraud; averred that the deed to said Diana was 
given by said Richard at his urgent request and solicitation, that in 
consideration thereof they would receive him into their family and support him 
during his natural life, which agreement they made and fully performed; and 
that the deed afterwards executed by said Diana and delivered to said Richard, 
was executed at the request and for the satisfaction of said Richard, in order 
to secure to him the support agreed upon, he, the said Richard, having 
expressed fears that a claim set up by one of the complainants against said 
John Thompson might otherwise deprive him of the provision he had made for his 
old age.

The case was submitted on bill and answer.

A. D. Frazer for complainant.

B. F. H. Witherell for defendants.

The Chancellor.—The consideration for the deed from Richard McCurdy to Diana 
Thompson was a good and sufficient consideration, and the condition having 
been performed, there can be no doubt that the title of the defendants, John 
Thompson and wife, to the land in question is good.

The conduct of the defendants, John and Diana Thompson, seems to have been not 
only just, but meritorious.

The deed from Diana Thompson to Richard McCurdy is stated in the answer to 
have been executed as security merely, and having been destroyed or canceled 
by the grantee, in pursuance of the agreement of the parties, cannot form the 
foundation of any claim of the present complainants. That deed was also void 
in itself, it having been executed by a feme covert without her husband's 
joining with her. (See Sexton v. Pickering, 8 Rand. R., 468.)

No relief is prayed against Carson McCurdy, the other defendant.

The bill must be dismissed with costs. 

Bill dismissed.

--------------------
(a.)—This rule of the common law was changed by statute in 1855, and since 
that time a married woman may convey her lands alone, by deed executed and 
acknowledged in the same manner as if she were unmarried. See Compiled Laws, 
§3292; Farr v. Sherman, 11 Mich., 33; Watson v. Thurber, Ibid, 457. And 
husband and wife may convey directly to each other. Burdeno v. Amperse, 14 
Mich., 91.

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/unknown/court/goff22gwl.txt

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

File size: 4.6 Kb