Perkins v. Canine
| Decision Date | 25 May 1897 |
| Citation | 113 Mich. 72,71 N.W. 457 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PERKINS v. CANINE. |
Appeal from circuit court, Washtenaw county, in chancery; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.
Bill by Anna M. Perkins against Aaron H. Canine. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Lawrence & Butterfield, for appellant.
A. J. Sawyer, for appellee.
GRANT, J. (after stating the facts).
The defendant introduced no testimony except his deeds. We think it established by the evidence that these six acres were sold to Rogers, were intended to be included in the deed from Wallace to him, and that they were left out of the deed by mistake. Nothing occurred to call the attention of the various owners to the mistake until defendant claimed the title. For 10 years the parties had kept up a well-marked line between the two parcels, and complainant and her grantors had cultivated the land in dispute and been in possession of it. There does not appear to have been any dispute as to the location of the line established by the governmental survey. There is evidence to show that Stevens and defendant purchased with knowledge of the claim or Rogers and his grantees, and neither denies it. Defendant paid Stevens $550 for the land, and Stevens gave him a warranty deed. When this suit was commenced defendant notified Stevens to defend it, and they settled by Stevens' paying him $150. Without stating more fully the testimony, we think the decree was correct. This is not the question of the settlement of a boundary line, within the rule in Kilgannon v. Jenkinson, 51 Mich. 540, 16 N.W. 390. It is a question as to a mistake in the deeds. Decree affirmed, with costs. The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v. Burke
...necessary. Rumrill v. Shay, supra; Wilcox v. Lucas, supra; Cole v. Fickett, supra; Craig v. Kittredge, 23 N. H. 231;Perkins v. Canine, 113 Mich. 72, 71 N. W. 457. But no objection to the form of the decree is made by the appellants, and it is affirmed, with costs of the appeal as against th......
-
Collins v. Brown
... ... reformation in this case. (24 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ... ed., 654, 655; Parish v. Camplin, 139 Ind. 1, 37 ... N.E. 607; Perkins v. Canine, 113 Mich. 72, 71 N.W ... 457; Christensen v. Hollingsworth, 6 Idaho 87, 91, 96 Am. St ... 256, 53 P. 211.) ... George ... ...
-
Capitol Sav. & Loan Co. v. Standard Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Detroit, 120.
...and his wife, inasmuch as they occupied the stucco house built on lot 351. Hoyt v. Gooding, 99 Mich. 71, 58 N. W. 41,Perkins v. Canine, 113 Mich. 72, 71 N. W. 457,Mason v. Mullahy, 145 Ill. 383, 34 N. E. 36. In the following year, Wisniewski and wife deeded lot 351 to Joseph Lukasiewicz and......
- Godkin v. Obenauer