Hamilton v. Hamilton
Decision Date | 13 May 1870 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | John Smith, Jr. v. Robert Hamilton |
Heard May 12, 1870 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Case from Macomb Circuit.
Ejectment For a strip of land lying along the east and west quarter line on section ten, in town five north, of range twelve east. The title to the east half of the north west quarter was vested in the plaintiff, Smith; and to the east half of the south west quarter in the defendant, Hamilton; the question in controversy being the true location of the boundary line between the parties.
(Signed,) C. F. Mallary, County Surveyor.
The judgment is now brought into this Court for review upon a case made.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
E. F. Mead and A. B. Maynard, for plaintiff.
The Court below finds as a conclusion of law, that the plaintiff is equitably estopped from denying that the division line agreed upon in 1845, is not the true line as between the parties to this suit; that the facts establish a case of equitable estoppel, or estopped in pais. To constitute an equitable estoppel, there must have been an act done or statement made by a party which cannot be contravened or contradicted, without fraud on his part and injury to others whose conduct has been influenced by the act or omission. See 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. 642. The primary ground of the doctrine is that it would be a fraud in a party to assert what his previous conduct had denied, when, on the faith of that denial, others have acted. 31 Penn. Stat. 331; 5 Met. 478; 18 N. Y., 392. There must have been a wrong done on one side, and an injury, which is the direct effect of that wrong, suffered on the other side. And this injury must affirmatively appear. 1 Gill. 430; 30 N. Y., 519; 10 ib. 402; 1 Selden 394; 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Connelly v. Buckingham
...N.W. 142: "[A] boundary line long treated and acquiesced in as the true line, ought not to be disturbed on new surveys. Smith v. Hamilton, 20 Mich. 433, 438 (1870); Joyce v. Williams, 26 Mich. 332 (1873). Fifteen years' recognition and acquiescence are ample for this purpose (Stewart v. Car......
-
Warner v. Noble
...cases of adverse possession; acquiescence for a reasonable period short of that time may be conclusive. 8 Am.Jur. 799. In Smith v. Hamilton, 20 Mich. 433, 4 Am.Rep. 398, the court said: ‘* * * It has been held very generally, that when there has been an honest difficulty in determining the ......
-
Benz v. City of St. Paul
... ... 33, 35; French v ... Pearce, 8 Conn. 439; Spiller v. Scribner, 36 ... Vt. 245; Coleman v. Smith, 55 Tex. 254; Smith v ... Hamilton, 20 Mich. 433; Joyce v. Williams, 26 ... Mich. 332; Stewart v. Carleton, 31 Mich. 270; ... Jones v. Pashby, 67 Mich. 459; White v. Peabody, 106 ... ...
-
Hanlon v. Hove
...fences, and maintained them, the acquiescence need not continue for the statutory period in order to establish the line. Smith v. Hamilton, 20 Mich. 433, 4 Am. Rep. 398;Stewart v. Carleton, 31 Mich. 270;Jones v. Pashby, 67 Mich. 459, 35 N. W. 152,11 Am. St. Rep. 589. Where coupled with acqu......