DocketNumber: Docket No. 99
Citation Numbers: 203 Mich. 608
Judges: Bird, Brooke, Kuhn, Moore, Ostrander, Steere, Stone
Filed Date: 12/27/1918
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
Henry R. Monger, widower, is father of Joseph H. Monger and Mary E. Foster, and grandfather of Esther E., Dwight M. and Vera M. Monger, who are children of a deceased son. These are the only heirs at law of said Henry R. Monger. Henry R. Monger was 80 years old in November, 1916. He owned a small farm — some 31 acres — worth some $6,000. He owned and owns no other property. This land he conveyed by warranty deed, May 6, 1916, to his said grandchildren, and they recorded the deed.
The facts above stated appear in a bill of complaint filed December 26, 1916, by Joseph H. Monger, son of said Henry R. Monger, who prays that the said deed may be set aside and held to be void and the grantees therein be made to account to the grantor and plaintiff and his sister for all property and moneys which have come into their- hands by reason of the premises and that they be meantime restrained from disposing of the land.
Additional facts charged in the bill are that in July, 1916, the daughter of the said grantor applied to the probate court for the appointment of a guardian of the person and property of Henry R. Monger, alleging in her petition that he was mentally incompetent to manage his affairs; that there was a hearing, upon which the petition was dismissed and an appeal was taken to the circuit court from the order of the
Recognizing the rule that a plaintiff must have some interest in the subject-matter of the suit he begins, the learned trial judge was of opinion that here such an interest might be an expectancy, a reversionary interest, or interest in remainder, and that upon the allegations of the bill the heirs of Henry R. Monger had a direct interest. We cannot agree with this. There is a single ground upon which a court of equity might retain this bill as an injunction bill only until the final determination of the pending inquisition, and that is that in the event of threatened dissipation of the property the plaintiff and his sister would be liable in law for the support of their father. We have consid-' ered whether such an order ought to be made. We have said that the bill was filed December 26, 1916, the order appealed from made July 25, 1917. The case Was settled October 29, 1917, and the printed record received by the clerk of this court November 16, 1917. Not until the October term, 1918, was the cause brought on for hearing. There has been ample time
We conclude that an order should be entered reversing the order of the court below and dismissing the bill, appellants to recover costs of this appeal.