Gould v. Fiero
| Decision Date | 04 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 45.,45. |
| Citation | 262 Mich. 467,247 N.W. 719 |
| Parties | GOULD et al. v. FIERO et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John Simpson, Judge.
Ejectment action by John Gould and another against Leo J. Fiero and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Richard Price, of Jackson, for appellants.
F. L. Blackman, of Jackson, for appellees.
Plaintiffs brought ejectment to determine title to a narrow strip of land and to settle boundary and had verdict and judgment, from which defendants have appealed.
Plaintiffs own lot 7, block 2, J. C. Wood's addition to Jackson. Defendants own part of lot 6, adjoining on the north. The disputed strip lies between the two parcels, and averages about one foot in width. The dispute was produced by survey of a lot south of plaintiffs' lot, by reason of which plaintiffs were asked to concede a different lot line on the south, which they did, any they in turn asked defendants to make like concession to them, which was refused. The jury found the surveyed line, according to a correct, and original, survey, to be as claimed by plaintiffs. The finding could not well have been otherwise. The resurvey involved an original monument, and its correctness is sustained by at least the great weight of the evidence.
Adverse possession was also submitted as an issue of fact. We think on this issue defendants were entitled to a directed verdict as requested. Defendants had possession of the disputed strip for more than the statutory period before suit. The line was marked by stakes, a post, and by trees. Defendants' lot, including the strip, in early years was maintained at a different grade from that of the lot now owned by plaintiffs. It was occupied by defendants by way of care usual to owners of lots. Later, and after the grade of the lot now owned by plaintiffs was raised, defendants planted a hedge along the line which was on the line of the disputed strip. Defendants cared for and maintained the hedge and cut grass. Defendants at all times here in question have used and occupied the strip as their own and under claim of right. Plaintiffs had a driveway south of the hedge. That some one occasionally ran over the hedge or turned too shortly at the street line is not sufficient to raise an issue of adverse possession.
In Whitaker v. Erie Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 459, 60 N. W. 983, 984, the established rule of this court respecting adverse possession is stated: “It is sufficient if the acts of ownership are of such a character as to openly and publicly indicate an assumed control or use such as are consistent with the character of the premises in question.' Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670, 673, 32 N. W. 889.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregory v. Thorrez
...City of Rock Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908,97 A.L.R. 14;Greene v. Anglemire, 77 Mich. 168, 43 N.W. 772;Gould v. Fiero, 262 Mich. 467, 468, 247 N.W. 719. In the latter case we held: ‘Although defendants may have been mistaken as to the true line, they took the disputed strip, bel......
-
Dubois v. Karazin
...of the adverse holding is required when the circumstances are such that the contiguous holder ought to have known it.’ In Gould v. Fiero, 262 Mich. 467, 247 N.W. 719, we said: ‘Although defendants may have been mistaken as to the true line, they took the disputed strip, believing it to be t......
-
Simon v. Sch. Bd. of Dist. No. 2 of Richland
...that the contiguous holder ought to have such knowledge. Bird v. Stark, 66 Mich. 654, 33 N.W. 754, cited with approval in Gould v. Fiero, 262 Mich. 467, 247 N.W. 719, and more recently in Trowbridge v. Van Wagoner, 296 Mich. 587, 296 N.W. 689. There was undisputed testimony that defendant e......
-
Walker v. Bowen
...for more than statutory period, although boundary thus established is not true line according to plat.' (Syllabus.) In Gould v. Fiero, 262 Mich. 467, 247 N.W. 719, plaintiffs brought an action of ejectment to recover possession of a narrow strip of land lying between their property and that......