Berg v. Devries

• Decision Date: 02 November 1922
• Docket Number: No. 54.,54.
• Citation: 220 Mich. 484,190 N.W. 226
• Parties: VANDEN BERG et al. v. DEVRIES.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

220 Mich. 484

190 N.W. 226

VANDEN BERG et al.

v.DEVRIES.

No. 54.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 2, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ottawa County, in Chancery; Orien S. Cross, Judge.

Suit by Harry G. Vanden Berg and another against Dirk L. Devries. From decree for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before FELLOWS, C. J., and WIEST, McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, and STEERE, JJ.Robinson & Den Herder, of Holland (Arthur Van Duren, of Holland, of counsel), for appellants.

Fred T. Miles, of Holland, for appellee.

SHARPE, J.

In August, 1920, plaintiffs filed a bill to quiet title to a portion of lot 8, block 26, city of Holland. Defendant answered, and by cross-bill prayed that title to that portion of lot 8 possessed by him be quieted in him. We quote from an opinion of the trial judge:

‘From the testimony it appears that in May, 1904, the defendant was given 35 feet of land off from lot 8, block 26, city of Holland, upon which he erected a house, built a lawn and driveway, erected a clothesline post on the north line of the property as established by himself and his grantor, and since that time has been in open, notorious, and adverse possession of the property. Defendant did not obtain a deed of the property until July, 1905, and did not record the same until July, 1919.

‘In July, 1909, the plaintiffs purchased the portion of lot 8 north of the property of the defendant, and the description overlaps the description claimed by the defendant.

‘At the time the plaintiffs purchased their property the defendant had not filed his deed for record, but the possession of the defendant, the manner in which he maintained his lawn and driveway, the clothesline post, etc., clearly indicated the claim of the defendant as to his north line, and was sufficient notice to the plaintiffs of the claim of ownership of the defendant.

‘The plaintiffs have also recognized the clothesline post as the boundary line by planting flowers and shrubbery along the line.’

Decree was entered fixing the north boundary of defendant's land as indicated in the opinion. Plaintiffs have appealed and present two questions:

‘That plaintiffs, having prior recorded deed, are entitled to a decree as against the defendant for the full amount of land purchased by them from the administrator.

‘That defendant has not established title to any portion of said land by adverse possession.’

Defendant's actual and unequivocal possession of the land in question at the time of plaintiffs' purchase of adjoining land was sufficient notice to plaintiffs of his claim. It is said by a text writer that it is ‘notice to all the world.’ Gates, Real Property, p. 482. And see Banks v. Allen, 127 Mich. 80, 86 N. W. 383;Howatt v. Green, 139 Mich. 289, 102 N. W. 734;Clarke v. Bussard et al. (Mich.) 189 N. W. 873.

We think that the...