Court Opinion

ID: 7942948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 23:16:59.697253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:33:48.129744
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.
(after stating the facts). The main issue of fact in the case is, Was the sale a bona fide one, and the consideration paid, or was the title transferred to assist the complainant August Massi to avoid the payment of a debt ? Upon this the testimony was in direct conflict. There is no room to find that either is mistaken. Either the one or the other has committed perjury. Each has produced some corroborating evidence to support his version. We find it unnecessary to determine this controversy, as the case must be determined upon the complainants’ own evidence.
No fiduciary or confidential relation existed between Mr. Massi and Mr. Lavine. They were dealing with each other at arm’s length. They had had various business transactions together for some years. The land conveyed is conceded to be worth $2,500, the consideration expressed in the deed. The bond signed by Mr. Massi with another bondsman was for $500. He claims that he was threatened only with the payment of $115. This was contingent upon his principal, the administratrix, not performing her duty. The letter which he relies upon as containing the threat to enforce the claim against him only asked him to see that the administratrix performed her duty. He apparently took no steps to that end. He was accustomed to business affairs. He had 80 acres of land besides that involved in this suit, which he did not transfer. I can reach no other conclusion from his own testimony than that he conveyed this land, worth $2,500, to avoid a *143liability of only $115. He does not come into court with clean hands, and equity will leave him in the bed he chose to make. Under his own testimony, he is not entitled to relief. The record does not justify a finding that this is a case where the stronger has overpowered the weaker, or the superior has taken advantage of the inferior, and by his persuasion and influence has procured an unlawful act to be done. The case falls within Poppe v. Poppe, 114 Mich. 649.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
McAlvay, Blair, Montgomery, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.