Bunce v. Bidwell
| Decision Date | 09 June 1880 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BUNCE v. BIDWELL. |
When a married man lives upon 40 acres of land, and an adjoining strip of land is in dispute between him and a neighbor, the latter, in bringing ejectment for the strip, need not join the defendant's wife in the suit, as presumptively she has no homestead interest in the land in dispute.
Where by reason of an adverse possession of lands for 20 years, the occupant has acquired a proper right in the law to defend his possession, he has for all practical purposes a title, and may maintain suits upon it against parties afterwards found upon the land.
An error was made in running a division line between two farms. The parties respectively occupied up to the erroneous line for more than 20 years. Afterwards, the correct line was run.
Held first, that if the parties occupied up to the erroneous line supposing it to be the true boundary, and relying upon it such line could not be disturbed afterwards, and a mere oral agreement to run a new line could not disturb the title thus fixed. But, second, if the parties did not rely upon the first survey, but expected to settle the line by another when convenient to make it, the mere possession for 20 years, according to the erroneous line, would not give title. Third. The question of the nature of the possession, and of the claims of the respective parties, is one of fact for the jury exclusively.
Error to Jackson.
John D. Conely, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas E. Barkworth, for defendant in error.
The land which Bidwell sought to recover in this case is a strip 27 feet in width across the north end of the south half of the east half of the south-west quarter of section 17, in township 4 south, of range 1 west, in Jackson county. Bidwell has a paper title to this 40-acre lot, which he acquired in 1879, and he owns and has resided for many years on the 40 acres adjoining it on the west. Bunce owns the north half of the east half of said south-west quarter, and resides upon it. The narrow strip is in controversy by reason of an error in a survey, by which the parties concerned undertook to establish the dividing line between the north and south forties of this east half of the quarter section. This survey was made in 1846. William Spencer then owned the north 40 and Leonard Huntly the south 40. One Van De Bogert made the survey for them, and through some mistake placed the dividing line 27 feet too far south. The line thus run was not questioned at the time, and the parties interested built a fence upon it, which remained as the dividing line of their possessions for 25 years.
In 1869, however, while Mrs. Sexton owned the south 40 of the east half of the quarter section, Bidwell and herself desired a new survey, and called in one Crowl to make it. There is some evidence that Bunce assented to this survey, but none that he agreed to be bound by it, and he did not actually take any part in it. It was made, however, and the error in the former survey was discovered, and the true line marked out. Bidwell claims and offers some evidence to show that Bunce subsequently recognized the true line, assented to a division fence being erected upon it, and drew stone for building a part of the fence himself. Bunce denied this. It was shown that Bidwell moved over a part of the fence to the line of the Crowl survey, but Bunce moved it back again. Bidwell afterwards brought this suit.
1. Bunce testified on the trial that he claimed the land on which he resided as his homestead; and it was thereupon objected by his counsel that the suit was defective for want of parties; the wife having rights in the homestead, inalienable except by her own act, and which made it necessary that she should be joined in any suit involving the homestead or any part of it, since otherwise the dispossession of the husband must dispossess her also, without an opportunity to defend her rights, or compel a separation of the family. Hodson v. Van Fossen, 26 Mich. 68. But as the constitution and statutes only exempt 40 acres as a homestead, and it is not claimed or pretended that Bunce has less than the full 40 acres without this disputed strip, this objection would seem to have no force. It is of no importance that the parties, previous to the discovery of the mistake in the survey, supposed and acted upon the belief that this narrow strip was within the limits of the north 40 acres. A mistake of the sort cannot enlarge the homestead exemption, which is unalterably limited to a definite quantity, and can be enlarged neither by contracts nor blunders.
But it is said that inasmuch as this strip of land might be claimed by the wife as a part of her homestead, there can be no right to adjudge her claim to be unfounded in a suit to which she is not a party, and in which she has no opportunity to present her view of the facts. But if the mere fact that a woman may assert a homestead right renders her a necessary party to an ejectment suit, the wife of a defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial