Cook v. Cook

• Decision Date: 02 July 1895
• Citation: 106 Mich. 164,64 N.W. 12
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: COOK v. COOK ET AL. (GAMBLE ET AL., INTERVENERS. TWO CASES).

64 N.W. 12

106 Mich. 164

COOK v. COOK ET AL. (GAMBLE ET AL., INTERVENERS. TWO CASES).

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1895

Error to circuit court, Ogemaw county; Nelson Sharpe, Judge.

Actions by Adam Cook and John Cook, respectively, against George Cook and others to enforce loggers' liens. Henry Gamble and William C. Webber intervened. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs, and interveners bring error. Reversed.

O. E. M'Cutcheon and F. L. Snodgrass, for appellants.

W. A. Weeks (McDonell & Hall, of counsel), for appellees.

McGRATH, C.J.

Plaintiffs in these cases, as employ�s of one George Cook, claim liens upon certain forest products taken from the S.W. 1/4 of section 9, township 21 N., range 2 E. George Cook held a tax title. Defendants Webber and Gamble, claiming, as owners of the land, to own the products, make proof of title to the lands, and offer to show that the tax title is invalid. The court excluded the testimony. This was error. The only possession here shown was one incident to the cutting of the timber. Defendant went upon the land in November, erected lumber camps thereon, and immediately commenced cutting and removing the timber from the land. He says that he entered for the purpose of doing the lumbering in question. He did nothing but remove the timber. Such possession does not bring the case within the rule contended for by counsel for plaintiffs. In Busch v. Nestor, 70 Mich. 525, 38 N.W. 458, Mr. Justice Champlin, speaking for the court, says: "I do not concede the doctrine, however, that where the proof shows, as in this case, the pine standing upon the land is the principal, and very likely the only, value of consequence, a holder of a tax title may light down upon the land, like the locusts of Egypt, and destroy all there is of value upon it, and then depart, leaving the land denuded of all that is valuable, and turn the owner over to his tardy action of ejectment, with its three trials, and, after judgment is finally secured, to his action for mesne profits. In most cases it would be a barren remedy for barren land not worth the taxes." See, also, McKinnon v. Meston (Mich.) 62 N.W. 1014. The judgments are reversed, and new trials ordered.

LONG, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred.