Jeffries v. Union Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 127.,127. |
| Citation | 248 Mich. 652,227 N.W. 684 |
| Parties | JEFFRIES v. UNION TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Theodore J. Richter, Judge.
Suit by Jennie Wheeler Jeffries against the Union Trust Company, executor of the estate of Robert C. Sheehan, deceased, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Daniel R. Foley, of Detroit, for appellant.
Schmalzriedt, Frye, Granse & Frye, of Detroit, for appellees.
This is a suit in ejectment which has been before this court on a former occasion, Jeffries v. Sheehan, 242 Mich. 167, 218 N. W. 703. Plaintiff claims to have acquired title to the strip of land in dispute by acquiescence and agreement incident to an alleged settlement of a boundary line. The defendants had judgment on a directed verdict. Plaintiff has assigned error as follows:
‘1. The court erred in not allowing plaintiff's counsel in his opening statement to the jury to state his theory of the law applicable to said cause.
‘2. The court erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to testify as to what her grantor, David W. Simons, told her with regard to the boundaries of the property in question at the time she purchased the property from him.
‘3. Because the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants. * * *
* * *’
As to plaintiff's first assignment of error it need only be said that her theory was fairly presented to the jury notwithstanding the court's ruling; and, further, since the verdict was directed by the court, plaintiff was not prejudiced.
The testimony referred to in the second assignment was hearsay and not at all material to plaintiff's claim that she had title by acquiescence. The conversation which plaintiff sought to prove occurred in 1913 between herself and her grantor. He was an entire stranger to these defendants, and the conversation did not occur in the presence of any of them, and was not at all connected with the circumstances happening in 1922 in consequence of which plaintiff claims title by acquiescence.
We have gone through this record with care and are convinced that the plaintiff did not make out a case for the jury on her theory of having acquired title by acquiescence. The alleged agreement out of which such title is claimed to have arisen was between plaintiff and defendants' predecessor in title, who was not living at the time this suit was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Spencer
...of way, but none expressly conveyed an easement to the plaintiffs as grantees. An easement is an interest in land. Jeffries v. Union Trust Co., 248 Mich. 652, 227 N.W. 684. An easement may not be ‘created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared, unless by act or operation of law, or by ......
-
Doctor v. Turner
...such testimony was wholly inconpetent. Without such testimony the plaintiff has no case. The defendant rely upon Jeffries v. Union Trust Co., 248 Mich. 652, 227 N. W. 684, where this court affirmed a holding by the trial court that the testimony of plaintiff as to what her grantor told her ......
-
Peaslee v. Dietrich
...Michigan case law holding that an easement is an interest in land. Myers v. Spencer, 318 Mich. 155, 27 N.W.2d 672; Jeffries v. Union Trust Co., 248 Mich. 652, 227 N.W. 684; Young v. Thendara, Inc., 328 Mich. 42, 43 N.W.2d See, also, 17A Am.Jur., Easements, § 158. The language of the 2 recor......
- Van Kemseke v. Van Kemseke