Dryfoos v. Maple Grove Tp., 77
| Decision Date | 28 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 77,77 |
| Citation | 363 Mich. 252,109 N.W.2d 811 |
| Parties | Robert J. DRYFOOS, Plaintiff and Appellee. v. TOWNSHIP OF MAPLE GROVE and Township of Castleton, Barry County, Michigan, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Adelbert Cortright, Hastings, for defendants and appellants.
Dean & Siegel, Hastings, for plaintiff and appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
This case involves a dispute between two neighbors. They live across the road from each other. One has blocked it off and the other objects.
At an earlier time the neighbor raising the objection, Leslie F. Feighner, and his wife, owned all of the property here involved. Between the years 1938 and 1941 they conveyed to the plaintiff, Robert Dryfoos, the land to the north of the road and and a portion of the land to the south, retaining however, that portion upon which their home stood, which was to the west of the portion conveyed. The road, alleged to be a public highway, is only about 30 rods in length, running east from a road called 'East Road' (sometimes called 'Cemetery Avenue,' or 'Road') to a lake, described in the record as 'Lake One.'
The road, short though it may be, is long enough to arouse both recrimination and resentment. Controversy over its status (public road or private way) had smoldered for years. It was fanned into flame by the action of plaintiff Dryfoos in installing posts in it near its intersection with East Road. The defendant highway commissioner served notice on the plaintiff to remove them, whereupon plaintiff filed a bill of complaint to enjoin the township from removing obstructions and to decree that the public has no right, title, or interest in the premises owned by the plaintiff. Mr. Feighner thereupon sought and obtained permission to intervene, and filed a cross bill claiming that the road is a public road. It is not asserted that there was any formal dedication but it is asserted that there has been long and established user. 1 The trial chancellor having found no acceptance of the road, the defendants an intervenor are here on a general appeal.
The difficulty with the defendants' case lies in the facts. There has been some user of the way since long before the turn of the century. Forty or fifty years ago some persons used to get their summer ice from Lake One, but whether this use was permissive or not is not shown. Ice fishermen have used it, some with permission, others with knowledge of trespass. Still others said they considered it a public road and at least one witness concluded his testimony by guessing it was a public road. Some permissive use of the road through the kindness of Mr. Feighner himself was shown and in this connection it was of significance to the trial chancellor, as it is to us, that when Mr. Feighner himself deeded property to plaintiff in 1941 he reserved a 'right to access to the lake', a precaution hardly necessary if, in truth, the road in question was a public highway. All of this is a far cry from the situation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donaldson v. Alcona County Bd. of County Road Com'rs
...of "hostile." Boone v. Antrim Co. Bd of Rd Comm'rs, 177 Mich.App. 688, 693, 442 N.W.2d 725 (1989); accord Dryfoos v. Maple Grove Twp., 363 Mich. 252, 255, 109 N.W.2d 811 (1961); DeWitt v. Roscommon Co. Rd Comm, 45 Mich.App. 579, 582, 207 N.W.2d 209 (1973). We conclude that these two terms a......
-
Boone v. Antrim County Bd. of Road Com'rs
...depending upon when the highway came into existence. Id.; DeWitt, supra 45 Mich.App. at 582, 207 N.W.2d 209; Dryfoos v. Maple Grove Twp., 363 Mich. 252, 255, 109 N.W.2d 811 (1961). This use must also include an acceptance by public authorities with the way taken and maintained as other high......
-
Indian Club v. Board of County Road Com'rs of Lake County, 119
...of Sault Ste. Marie, 146 Mich. 23, 109 N.W. 53; Leelanau County Board of Road Commissioners v. Bunek, supra; Dryfoos v. Township of Maple Grove, 363 Mich. 252, 109 N.W.2d 811. Testimony showed that the road in dispute has existed since before 1900, in almost the exact location as it does to......
-
DeWitt v. Roscommon County Road Commission
...the comparative paucity of evidence he submits to show dedication by exclusive, open, and notorious public use. Dryfoos v. Maple Grove Twp., 63 Mich. 252, 109 N.W.2d 811 (1961); Indian Club v. Lake County Rd. Commrs., 370 Mich. 87, 120 N.W.2d 823 (1963). Even if we now accepted plaintiff's ......