Pere Marquette Ry. Co. v. Tower Motor Truck Co.
Decision Date | 22 March 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 95.,95. |
Citation | 222 Mich. 190,192 N.W. 634 |
Parties | PERE MARQUETTE RY. CO. v. TOWER MOTOR TRUCK CO. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Montcalm County; Frank D. M. Davis, Judge.
Ejectment by the Pere Marquette Railway Company against the Tower Motor Truck Company. Judgment for plaintiff entered on a directed verdict, and defendant brings error. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Griswold & Cook, of Greenville, for appellant.
Hawley, Eldred & Gemuend, of Ionia, for appellee.
The original plat of the city, then village, of Greenville, known as Rutan's plat, was recorded in the register of deeds' office in Montcalm county on May 21, 1856. It included lands on sections 9 and 10 in town 9 north, range 8 west. The line between these sections appeared on the plat as Lafayette street. It was 4 rods in width. Clay street, 4 rods wide, lies 24 rods east of Lafayette, and Webster street, the eastern boundary of the plat 3 rods wide, was 23 rods east of Clay. The land to the east of Webster street was afterwards platted by what is known as Edwards' addition.
On April 9, 1873, a part of this land, designated by blocks, was subdivided by E. B. Edwards, the owner thereof, the plat therefor being known as ‘Edwards' Third addition to the village of Greenville.’ This plat was recorded on April 9, 1873. The dedication, so far as it relates to the property involved in this action, reads:
“Edwards' Third addition' includes all of lot No. six (6) and all that part of lots Nos. five (5) and seven (7) lying east of Webster street in the village of Greenville (now city of Greenville), except block A, which has been previously recorded, and is knwon as ‘Edwards' addition to the village of Greenville,’ said lots 5, 6, and 7 being on section ten (10), town nine (9) north of range eight (8) west.'
Smith and Court streets are east of Webster street. The width of the streets and lots in the blocks, is plainly marked on the plat. The lots on the east side of Court street run east and west and are numbered from 1 to 7, inclusive. On January 21, 1881, Mr. Edwards conveyed to the Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad Company, plaintiff's grantor, a tract of land in Edwards' Third addition, which included Court street and 4 rods in length off the west end of said lots 1 to 7, inclusive, fronting on Court street--
‘all of said above-mentioned streets, lots, and blocks of land being on Edwards' addition to Greenville according to the plat thereof, recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Montcalm county aforesaid in Liber 30 of Deeds, on pages 216, 217, and 218, and being the same lands heretofore contracted by said Edwards to the president and secretary of the Ionia & Lansing Railroad Company on the 21st day of May, A. D. 1869, which contract is mentioned in the descriptions of land of said plat as recorded as aforesaid.’
Claiming that defendant was wrongfully in possession of a part of this 4-rod strip, plaintiff brought this action of ejectment, and by the judgment, entered upon a verdict directed by the court, was adjudged to be entitled to recover the possession of a strip 1 1/2 feet wide on the easterly side thereof. Defendant reviews the judgment on assignments of error claimed to have been committed in the direction of the verdict for plaintiff, in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant, and in the admission and rejection of testimony.
The defendant owns the balance of lots 1 to 7 and has substantial buildings and improvements on them and on the land adjoining on the east. Its grantors acquired title to at least a part of this land in 1871, before the plat of the Third addition was recorded. The only question in dispute is from what point measurements should be taken to ascertain the boundary line between plaintiff's and defendant's property. In some way, not explained in the record, the eastern boundary of Webster street, as determined by the buildings and sidewalks now thereon, is about 1 1/2 feet farther to the east than the distances stated on the Rutan plat would place it. Counsel for plaintiff concede that, if measurements be made from Lafayette street, the defendant is within its boundary line, but insist that the actual location of Webster street must be taken as the starting point for making such measurements.
Copies of the plats do not appear in the record. There is attached to defendant's brief a blueprint which purports to show that part of the Rutan plat and of the Edwards' Third addition from Lafayette street east to the land in dispute. Plaintiff's counsel apparently concede its accuracy by their reference to it in their brief. From this blueprint it appears that Edwards' Third addition platted lands to the east of Webster street as fixed by the Rutan plat. We do not think any other intent...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Rath Packing Co. v. Gen. Cold Storage Co.
-
McMurtry v. Abbey
...the line between lots Nos. 215 and 216 would be established six inches farther south and they rely upon Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. Tower Motor Truck Co., 222 Mich. 190, 192 N.W. 634, and Miller v. Michel, 227 Mich. 497, 198 N.W. 950, in support of their theory. The theory of these cases ......
-
Gregory v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co.
...and no subsequent survey establishing a starting point should be allowed to unsettle such boundaries.’ Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Tower Motor Truck Co., 222 Mich. 190, 192 N.W. 634, 636. The decree entered in the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.FEAD, WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL, SHARPE, and......