Marshall v. Heselschwerdt
Decision Date | 06 April 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 46.,46. |
Citation | 8 N.W.2d 871,304 Mich. 664 |
Parties | MARSHALL et al. v. HESELSCHWERDT. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Summary proceedings by Benjamin Marshall and Julia Marshall against Melvin Heselschwerdt to regain possession of a gravel pit. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Washtenaw County; George W. sample, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
James C. Hendley, of Manchester, and William M. Laird, of Ann Arbor, for defendant and appellant.
Jacob F. Fahrner, of Ann Arbor, and Leo L. Watkins, of Manchester, for plaintiffs and appellees.
Summary proceedings by plaintiffs to obtain possession of a gravel pit. Plaintiffs are the owners of a farm in Washtenaw county on which the gravel pit is located. Defendant is a general contractor, selling sand and gravel. In 1934 an oral agreement was entered into between plaintiffs and defendant for taking gravel out of the pit, which is described by the parties in their testimony as follows:
By Mr. Marshall, plaintiff:
By Mr. Heselschwerdt, defendant:
No time for performance or termination was set. Plaintiffs continued in possession of the field where the gravel pit was located, and raised crops on the land. Defendant removed gravel for several years and paid for it. Eventually plaintiffs became dissatisfied with defendant's manner of removing gravel and the place from which defendant was taking gravel, and on several occasions notified defendant not to remove any more gravel. Defendant maintained a gate at the entrance to the pit, and kept it chained and locked. On one occasion plaintiffs locked and chained up the gate, but defendant cut the chain and continued to take gravel. Finally plaintiffs served on defendant a written notice in the usual form of a demand for possession and ‘to terminate tenancy,’ which further stated: ‘And you are hereby further notified to refrain from taking any further gravel from the said pit and farm under penalty for trespass and liability for all damages arising from the taking of said gravel and for all acts in connection therewith.'
Defendant argues that by reason of the form of this notice, and similar language in the complaint, the defendant was a tenant-that his status is that of a tenant, not a licensee. Defendant's own testimony refutes the claim. On cross-examination he admitted that he ‘just leased gravel’ and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bostrom v. Jennings
...oral or written. A familiar example is an oral permit to enter upon the lands of another for a particular pupose. Marshall v. Heselschwerdt, 304 Mich. 664, 8 N.W.2d 871; Frank v. Coyle, 310 Mich. 14, 16 N.W.2d As before indicated, this is not a case involving liability between the owner of ......
-
McCastle v. Scanlon
...Stat.Ann. § 26.906; Wallace v. Kelly, 148 Mich. 336, 111 N.W. 1049. Plaintiff had merely a revocable license. Marshall v. Heselschwerdt, 304 Mich. 664, 8 N.W.2d 871. The payment by plaintiff to defendants of the sum of $175 does not change the situation in this May the written agreement of ......
-
Forge v. Smith
...that the license was revokable at will.31 1 Cameron, Michigan Real Property Law (2d ed.), § 6.2, p. 189.32 Id.33 Marshall v. Heselschwerdt, 304 Mich. 664, 8 N.W.2d 871 (1943).34 Id.35 5 Restatement Property, § 513, p. 3121 (emphasis added).36 Id., comment b, p. 3122.37 Id., p. 3121. See als......
- Hall v. Williamson