Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

was a transfer of the Crawford property from Mrs. Crawford to Leonard, and that something was said about not putting the deed upon record; that he never witnessed the signature of Mrs. Crawford but once. This witness also testifies that, so far as he knows, Mrs. Crawford was perfectly satisfied. He says that afterwards Leonard told him he had left the deed in charge of the register of deeds, with instructions not to place it upon record until he notified him.

In this connection, the testimony of the register of deeds. is noteworthy. He says that he was elected in 1876, and occupied the office in 1877 and 1878; that in the summer of 1878 O'Farrell told him that Leonard C. Crawford would bring a document to be put in his possession for safe keeping, and that he should preserve it and keep it in his possession, and not put it on record until he was told to, or something to that effect, and that Crawford would pay for keeping it safe; that a few days afterwards Crawford brought to him, a warranty deed, a bulky paper written on legal cap, from Cynthia W. Crawford to Leonard; that he looked it over, and took it into his possession for safe keeping; that it took in all the lands in Presque Isle county belonging to Mrs. Crawford; that he thinks O'Farrell took the acknowledgment, and that McDonald was a witness. Crawford told him not to put it upon record, because he was in such a position that there were some judgments hanging over him, and he did not want to put it on record. IIe said he would be in a good position soon, and pay up all; that he looked it over very carefully, and discovered a mistake in the descriptions, and spoke to Crawford about it, and he took it, and said it would be fixed again, and he never saw that paper again. It was in O'Farrell's handwriting. Afterwards he received another deed from Crawford, it being the deed now claimed to be a forgery. He told the witness to keep it in some way, not to put it on record; that he was in such position that everybody was watching him, and he did not want it to be put on record, and to put it on when he gave notice; and a few months after he told him to record it, and he did so on the 30th day of December, 1878. It will be noticed that this was the day

before his official term would expire. He afterwards gave the deed to Crawford. It appears that the index of this deed in the index of deeds required by law to be kept by the register was so indexed under the initial C that its presence would not be ascertained except by the merest chance. There were twenty-seven lines upon which no entry had been made upon the last page occupied by entries of names commencing with the letter C, and the entry of this deed was over the leaf. It was some time after the register who went into office on January 1st, 1879, discovered by accident the entry, although he had searched for conveyances and incumbrances of this property previously without finding any.

Mrs. Crawford did not discover the existence of this deed until the spring of 1880, when she promptly repudiated it and pronounced it a forgery. From that time on she seems to have endeavored to obtain a reconveyance. She is charged with laches, but whether she is guilty of laches must depend in a great measure upon her opportunities, her surroundings, the relationship of the parties, and the efforts she put forth to obtain a reconveyance. At the "Quarry" she was in the hands of her son, and was completely helpless. The members of the legal profession, so far as we are advised, residing at the "Quarry" or at Rogers City, were in the employ of her son. The only way that she could put the public upon notice of her rights was to talk, and from the evidence it appears that her tongue was not idle. She denounced the deed as a forgery to all whom she met. She wrote to the register of deeds forbidding him to record any conveyances from her son, for the reason that the deed had been obtained by fraud-a futile thing to do, but she was doing what she thought she could do to give notice. She besought Mr. Carpenter, an attorney, and relative of the family, to see her son, and he did so, but without result. She employed Mr. Dowling, an attorney in Detroit, and he, about the middle of October, 1880, visited Crawford's Quarry, and after a protracted negotiation obtained an agreement. from Leonard that he would reconvey by quitclaim deed all the lands covered by the deed of August 10th, 1878, but on

£8 MICH-2

condition that the same should be deposited with William A. Moore in escrow, subject to the conditions endorsed thereon, as follows:

"The conditions referred to in the within deed, and hereby mutually agreed upon, are these: That this deed shall be placed in escrow with Wm. A. Moore, Esq., of Detroit, Mich., to be by him retained, without filing, recording, or publicity, until the death of said Leonard C., or of said Cynthia W. Crawford. That if said Leonard C. Crawford dies first, then, on said Cynthia W. Crawford paying in cash to the widow of said Leonard C. Crawford one thousand dollars, said deed shall be delivered up to her, said Cynthia W. Crawford, and not before. That in case of the death of said Cynthia W. Crawford before said Leonard C. dies, then this deed shall forthwith, upon her death, become null and void, and shall be forthwith delivered up to said Leonard C. Crawford.

Dated Crawford's Quarry, Presque Isle county, Mich., October 16th, A. D. 1880.

LEONARD C. CRAWFORD.
CYNTHIA W. CRAWFORD.
By M. E. DOWLING, her Attorney."

This deed bears date October 16th, 1880, and at the time of its execution Dowling was not informed of any deeds or mortgages having been executed upon the property. But it turns out that this settlement was a fraud upon the rights of Mrs. Crawford scarcely less heinous than the forgery of the deed in the first instance. For, while Leonard C. Crawford was negotiating with Dowling for a settlement of the matter with his mother, and while ostensibly yielding to her a portion of her rights, he was secretly conveying away and incumbering the whole of the property beyond the means and reach of his mother. To use a familiar quotation, he was "keeping the word of promise to her car to break it to her hope." At the time he was preparing the quitclaim deed to his mother he was also preparing for execution a deed for an undivided half of the quarry property to Herman Hoeft, and a contract of partnership by which the whole of the quarry property should be put into the firm as assets for ten years, and a mortgage to one Edwin Hadley upon all of the

other property, to secure the payment of eight thousand dollars, which it was intended Hadley should negotiate for Leonard's benefit. These papers were actually drawn and delivered before the execution of the deed to Mrs. Crawford, which was to be placed in escrow, and which has expressed therein that it is executed "for and in consideration of the natural love and affection to said second party his mother." But more than this, he left out and kept back all of section twenty-four, upon which the village and the quarry is situated. This settlement and deed Mrs. Crawford also repudiated; and she refuses to be bound by the settlement made by Dowling. In this she is justifiable, not only because of the fraud perpetrated upon her in executing the conveyances above mentioned, but because the settlement, so called, gave her nothing whatever of value. It imposed a burden upon her in order to obtain what was her own.

The testimony of Mrs. Williams has certain peculiarities which incline us to weigh it with caution, yet upon the facts attending the execution of a deed by Mrs. Crawford when McDonald was present, she is clear as to the nature of the instrument and the object to be accomplished thereby. She testifies that O'Farrell was not present at all on that occasion; that the property conveyed was simply the quarry property, with a reservation; that it was but a single sheet, and with but little writing upon it, and she is positive in her statement that the deed in question is not the deed which she saw on that occasion. She also testifies to being present at interviews previous to the time the deed was executed between Mrs. Crawford and Leonard, in which he importuned his mother to deed him the land, and that she refused to do it, but finally consented to execute a quitclaim deed which should stand in the place of a lease, so he could carry on business, for which he was to support her and her hus band if he should remove to the "Quarry" to reside, and pay her three hundred dollars annually, which deed should not be placed on record. And this, she says, was the deed which was executed at that time.

The evidence above referred to was before us

on the

former hearing, and was duly considered, and although we were satisfied therefrom that a fraud had been perpetrated, it did not appear clear to the majority of the Court that the instrument complained of was a forgery. It appeared to us that the signature appended to the deed was the genuine signature of Mrs. Crawford, and I am still of that opinion. The forgery, if one existed, could not be readily discerned. Since the last argument, however, we have made a careful examination of the deed alleged to have been forged, and have discovered what to us appears conclusive that a forgery of the deed has been committed, when viewed in the light of the testimony of the witnesses as to the character of the deed which was executed by Mrs. Crawford to her son at the time Mr. McDonald and Mrs. Williams were present, and the other testimony in the case bearing upon the genuineness of the deed in question. The deed produced, and which it is claimed is a forgery, is filled out upon the printed form known as the long form warranty deed, upon sheets folded at the end like legal cap paper, having marginal red lines ruled upon both margins of the pages of the sheet. The first half of the sheet embraces all of the deed, including the description of the premises conveyed, except the attestation clause and the acknowledgment. To a person desiring to perpetrate a fraud by substituting a spurious conveyance for a genuine, this form affords unusual facilities. All such evil-disposed person would have to do would be to sever the sheet in the middle and attach the half sheet which has the genuine sig nature and the genuine signatures of the witnesses and acknowledgment to a half sheet of like form containing the spurious description. The deed in question, although executed as claimed in 1878, has a very dilapidated appearance. It is worn and dirty. It appears so worn as to become separated at each fold, and has been attached together by the aid of paper and mucilage. The edge where the half sheet was folded had been severed, and was also securely attached together by the same means. On detaching this mucilaged paper it was found that the edges of the half sheet were smooth and had no appearance of having been worn like the other folded

« ForrigeFortsett »