Case v. Trapp

• Decision Date: 27 June 1882
• Citation: 49 Mich. 59,12 N.W. 908
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CASE v. TRAPP.

12 N.W. 908

49 Mich. 59

CASE v. TRAPP.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 27, 1882

Boundary lines which have been long unquestioned ought not to be disturbed upon a mere disagreement between surveyors especially where the later survey was ex parte, and with only one set of claimants represented.

Appeal from Gratiot.

James L. Clark, for defendant.

COOLEY J.

Complainant is owner of the S.E. 1-4 of the N.E. 1-4 of section 6, in township 11 N., of range 4 W., in Gratiot county, with some exceptions not important to this controversy. Defendant is owner of the parcel lying immediately sought of this. In the year 1856 the highway commissioners of the township laid out a highway on what they supposed was the line between the two parcels, having first had a survey made for the purpose. The country was then but little settled, and complainant's land had been purchased of the government only two years before. For more than 20 years the dividing line between the two parcels was supposed to be the center of this highway, and complainant and those through whom she derived title exercised dominion over the land up to the highway without disturbance or controversy. In 1879 the county surveyor was brought upon the ground to survey out the line. The account he gives of his action is as follows:

"I surveyed it in May,--on the thirteenth, fourteenth and twenty-ninth days of that month,--1879, at the request of a majority of the resident land-owners of said section. The chainmen were Jesse Trapp and A. Edmondson; they were sworn. I think the east and west quarter line of said section ran some six or seven rods north of the line of an old east and west road. The east quarter post was set some six or seven years ago, when I surveyed section 5 of same township; the old bearing trees were all gone, and I surveyed and measured the section line between sections 5 and 6, and set the post at proportional distances, according to law with reference to setting quarter posts where they are lost. The north and east lines of section 6 are the township lines, and the north and west subdivisions are fractional. On the west side of a township in the government survey they never set a quarter post, so I surveyed the west side of section 6 in order to ascertain where to set the quarter post; I set it at proportional distances, using the same method that I did on the east side. In the government survey between section 6 and section 1 of the town west adjoining said section 6, there is a jog of 1 chain and 63 links at the section corner, as shown by the plat."

The cross-examination elicited the fact that the surveyor took the word of the parties employing him that the survey was at the request of a majority of the parties interested, and that in fact the survey was ex parte and with only one set of claimants represented. This survey gave to the defendant a strip of land north of the highway, some six or seven rods in width, and he immediately claimed title and asserted a right to possession. Complainant then filed this bill to quiet her own title.

It is assumed on the part of the defence that the survey corrects an old error, and unquestionably locates the true line. We do not think there is any certainty of this. On the contrary the...