Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/xlviii-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Christiancy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case vs. Peters.
    The effect of written evidence of title should not be changed, by an alleged parol agreement-upon a slight preponderance of evidence. The Court should be satisfied beyond a rea sonable doubt.
    Appeal from Wayne Circuit.
   Opinion by

Christiancy, J.

Admitting that the verbal agreement set up in the bill, under the circumstances alleged) would make Peters a mortgagee of Case, and convert the lease into a mortgage to secure Peters, rather than a trust in favor of complainant, and that the hill is rather in the nature of a hill to redeem than for the specific performance of an agreement, the complicated verbal arrangement set np is so entirely different from and inconsistent with the legal effect of the written lease, and the other written evidences of the transaction, as to have made it a very unfit subject to be trusted for years entirely to the mere memory of ' the parties. But upon the hypothesis that the case sought to be established hv complainant, would be one rather in the nature of a mortgage than a trust, and that parole evidence, therefore, is admissible to establish the agreement, and thereby change this lease executed by Bishop to Peters into a mortgage from complainant to Peters, it would he dangerous; and.it would tend to weaken confidence in titles generally, if the effects of deeds, leases, or other written evidences of title could be thus changed by a verbal agreement, except in very clear cases, where the cod. tract appeared to the entire satisfaction of the Court. It should never be done upon a slight preponderance of evidence. The Court shou'd be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of this alleged agreement is not of this character. The decree of the Court below must be reversed and the bill dismissed with costs.