People v. Miller

• Decision Date: 28 December 1889
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MILLER et al.

44 N.W. 172

79 Mich. 93

PEOPLE v. MILLER et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 28, 1889

Error to circuit court, Eaton county; FRANK A. HOOKER, Judge.

Action by the people of the state of Michigan against John A. Miller and Marshal K Miller, for obstructing a public street.

George Huggett and R. W. Shriner for plaintiff in error.

H F. Pennington, for defendants in error.

MORSE J.

This suit was brought, in justice's court, to recover a penalty of five dollars for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the city of Charlotte, enacted to prevent the obstruction or incumbering of streets, lanes, etc. Plaintiff obtained judgment in that court, whereupon defendants appealed to the circuit court, where a trial was had, before a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff comes to this court by writ of error.

It is admitted that defendants incumber, by machinery, etc., in front of their foundry, what is claimed by the plaintiff to be a portion of Cochrane avenue, in said city. The defense claimed that the title to the land at this point was in the defendant John A. Miller and his wife, Amanda Miller. After the testimony was all in, the plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, which was refused. This is the chief assignment of error in the case. The undisputed or conceded facts in the case are as follows: In the year 1872, John A. Miller was the owner of lot No. 1 in McClure's addition to the village (now city) of Charlotte. Lots Nos. 2 and 3 of the same addition, and adjoining lot 1, were, at the same time, owned by Mrs. Altha Rice, wife of D. P. Rice. In May of that year, for the purposes of widening Cochrane avenue, upon which these lots fronted, John A. Miller and Amanda Miller, with a large number of other persons, joined in a quitclaim deed to the public. Miller received $45 as a consideration for his deed. The deed described the land conveyed "for the purpose of a public street or highway," as "all the following described lands and premises situate, lying and being in the county of Eaton, state of Michigan, known and described as commencing at the south-east corner of section 12 in town 2 north, of range 5 west, and running thence north, on the section line, to the north line of said section 12; thence west, 50 feet; thence south, on a line parallel with the east line of said section 12 to the south line of said section 12; thence east, 50 feet, to the place of beginning,-to be used as a public street or highway, and for the purpose of widening the street known as 'Cochrane Avenue,' in the city of Charlotte, subject to the laws pertaining to and governing highways, together with all and singular," etc. This deed was executed and acknowledged by John A. Miller and Amanda Miller on the 22d day of May 1872, the instrument being dated in the body as of May 2, 1872. It was executed, also, by D. P. Rice, the husband of Altha Rice; but she did not join in the deed. This deed, executed by the lot-owners along the street for the length of a mile, was intended to make the street, which is the main one in the city, 100 feet wide. The description in this deed embraced 17 feet in width from off the east end of lots 1, 2, and 3 of McClure's addition to the city of Charlotte. Mrs. Rice deeded lots 2 and 3 to Laura Cadwell and John S. Opt, January 2, 1874, with the usual covenants of warranty, and made no exception as to this 17 feet. January 11, 1876, Laura Cadwell conveyed to John S. Opt her interest in said lots by warranty deed, making no exception of the land now claimed as highway; and November 12, 1880, John S. Opt and wife conveyed, in the same manner, these lots 2 and 3 to John A. Miller and Amanda Miller, his wife. Under these conveyances, Miller and wife claim the 17 feet alleged to have been obstructed by the defendants.

The court instructed the jury that the people must show, by a preponderance of proof, the existence of a highway at the place where the obstruction existed. The proofs showed that when McClure platted this addition the street was laid out four rods wide; that the plaintiff claimed a dedication of the 17 feet, and that the people must show that the person who owned the premises dedicated the land for the purpose of a street,-either Mrs. Rice, Opt, or Miller; and that the plaintiff must go further, and prove, also, an acceptance on the part of the public. He also instructed them that he could recall no evidence that would warrant the conclusion that Miller had made any dedication since he came into the possession of this land; that the dedication must exist by reason of what had occurred before Miller purchased; and that the question was "whether Mr. Miller bought that land with the street existing there; and it all hinges on what these people have done previously." He also charged that the doctrine of estoppel, that had been alluded to, by the taking of deeds, did not apply to the case. He ignored and rejected the claim of plaintiff that Miller and his wife, by joining in the deed to the public of this land, were thereby estopped, although they did not then own it, from denying the existence of the highway over this 17 feet afterwards acquired in their deed from Opt.

...