Palmer v. Dodd

• Decision Date: 20 January 1887
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PALMER v. DODD.

31 N.W. 209

64 Mich. 474

PALMER v. DODD.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 20, 1887

Error to circuit court, Calhoun county.

Henry A. Shaw, (Miner & Stace, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error Palmer.

John M Corbin, for defendant in error, Dodd.

CHAMPLIN J.

This was an action of trespass brought before a justice of the peace. The declaration is in the usual form, and describes the trespass as having been committed on the S.W. fractional 1/4 of section 23, in township 1 S., range 4 W., in the state of Michigan. The plea was the general issue. On the trial in the circuit court, to which the case had been appealed, the evidence showed that the plaintiff was the owner in fee of the S.W. fractional 1/4 of section 23, by a patent issued by the general government, in which the premises were so described, and the quantity of land as being 16.75 acres.

The evidence also showed that the defendant was the owner in fee of the E. 1/2 of the N.W. fractional 1/4 of section 23, described in the United States patent as containing 57 acres. This section is made fractional by a lake and marsh, which was meandered by the surveyor in making the United States survey. The point where the trespass was committed was within the boundaries of the S.W. 1/4 of section 23, if the quarter lines of the section should be extended in accordance with the law of congress from the opposite quarter-section posts, and the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that she and her husband, through whom she claimed, had been in actual possession of the locus in quo for over 20 years. The lake, which is surrounded by the marsh, is mostly located upon the S.E. 1/4 of the S.W 1/4 of the section.

Defendant's contention is that, inasmuch as the general government, in making its survey of the public lands, ran meander lines around this marsh, and designated it upon its plats as lake and marsh, that he is entitled to draw straight lines from the points where the east and west boundary lines of his land would intersect the meander line to the center of the lake in the S.E. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of the section, and that such lines would mark the boundary of his land, and that he would own to the center of the lake as a riparian proprietor. The learned circuit judge entertained this view of the case, and gave judgment for defendant. In this he erred. When the United States grants by patent land described by a legal subdivision, the grantee is...