Cotton v. McClatchey, 75.

• Decision Date: 02 September 1936
• Docket Number: No. 75.,75.
• Parties: COTTON v. McCLATCHEY et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

277 Mich. 109

268 N.W. 894

COTTON

v.McCLATCHEY et al.

No. 75.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 2, 1936.

Suit by Mary Watson Cotton against Albert H. McClatchey and others. From an adverse decree, the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County, in Chancery; Joseph H. Collins, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J.

Albert McClatchey, of Detroit, for appellants.

Joe P. Gates, of Howell, for appellee.

NORTH, Chief Justice.

This suit in chancery was instituted by plaintiff for the purpose of clearing cloud from the title of a parcel of land located on the shore of Runyan Lake in Tyrone township, Livingston county. The parcel is known as ‘Outlot B’ of the plat of Runyan Lake point, which plat is located on section 9 of the township. Plaintiff's claim of title by adverse possession was sustained by the circuit court. From the decree granting plaintiff the relief sought, defendants have appealed.

The facts and circumstances in consequence of which plaintiff asserts title by adverse possession are, in brief, as follows: In 1911 William W. Watson was one of two grantees in a deed from Catherine Angus which purported to convey title to a certain described portion of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 9 of Tyrone township. In 1918 the other grantee conveyed his interest to Watson. The record seems to indicate that the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 9 was owned by a party by the name of Angus. As a matter of fact, the parcel in question is located on the southeast quarter (not southwest quarter) of the northeast quarter of said section. This error in description, which was discovered by making a survey in 1932, obviously came about from the erroneous understanding or assumption of the parties that the point of land conveyed extended westerly out into the lake far enough so that the land (outlot B) was part of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter. Instead it was in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 9. Prior to 1911 this property was wild land and inaccessible except by crossing the lake, the waters of which bounded the property on all sides except to the east. As early as 1912 or 1913 an ordinary farm wire fence was built along the easterly boundary line of this property. This fence marked the easterly boundary line of the parcel for many years, and was finally replaced by a picket fence which was there at the time the case was tried. Not later than 1913 Watson to some extent cleared the brush and undergrowth from this point of land and erected thereon a cottage. This building still remains upon the property. One of the witnesses described it as follows: ‘You could see that cottage from all around the lake, through three sides, from the south, north and west. * * * It wasn't no up-to-date cottage at the time it was built, but it was a comfortable cottage inside at the time I was there. It was made from slabs from the mill.’

William Watson died August 18, 1932. There is abundance of testimony to establish the fact that from season to seasonMr. Watson either occupied this property as a summer cottage or that others under him had possession. There is also testimony that Mr. Watson sometimes went to the cottage and would spend a week at a time when he was fishing on the lake during the winter season. He lived in the village of Fenton, only a few miles from the lake. The exact dates or duration of the various periods of occupancy are not fully or definitely disclosed by the record; but it clearly appears that from 1913 until his death in 1932 Mr. Watson, either in person, or his tenant or contract vendee, used the property for the purposes for which it was developed as frequently as they saw fit, and that their right to do so was not questioned. At the time of his death, plaintiff herein was the wife of William Watson; and by the terms of his will, which was probated in Livingston county, all of his property, both real and personal, passed to plaintiff herein. For a number of seasons a Mr. Bryant G. Marble occupied the premises for a greater or less length of time as a tenant of Mr. Watson. In 1924 Mr. Bryant G. Marble purchased the property on a contract from Mr. and Mrs. Watson, but this contract contained the same erroneous description of the land as was embodied in the deeds to Watson. Mr. Marble, as contract vendee of Mr. Watson, continued to occupy and utilize the property in practically the same manner it had theretofore been used until this suit was started in December, 1935.

The circumstances under which defendants assert title to this property are as follows: They were interested in the purchase of property adjacent to the shore of a lake which could be developed as cottage property for summer use. Defendants considered several pieces of land owned by Harry W. Croft, including the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 9 of Tyrone township. In May, 1931, defend...