Ribble v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 24 October 1883
• Citation: 17 N.W. 60,51 Mich. 569
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: RIBBLE v. LAWRENCE.

17 N.W. 60

51 Mich. 569

RIBBLE v. LAWRENCE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 24, 1883

Plaintiff in trover must affirmatively show his ownership and right of immediate possession; and the defendant, especially if his claim is made peaceably and in good faith, is entitled to show, as a complete defense, that the title and right of possession was vested in a third person before suit was brought.

Error to Saginaw.

Eugene Wilbur, for plaintiff.

Tarsney & Weadock, for defendant and appellant.

GRAVES C.J.

The plaintiff brought trover before a justice of the peace, and the cause being appealed he obtained a verdict and judgment in the circuit court, which the defendant now asks to have reversed on writ of error and bill of exceptions. The charge made against the defendant was for the conversion of 45 cords of fire-wood, cut on the south-east quarter of section 3, in the township of Buena Vista, in Saginaw county. The plaintiff's case was in substance that the wood in controversy was cut in January, 1882, by Richard Farmer and James Duffy; that about December, 1882 the plaintiff bought it of them in good faith, together with a few cords which the same person had also cut in the north-east quarter of the adjoining section 10; that he had some other wood which Farmer and Duffy had previously cut for him from standing timber on said section 3; that on the twenty-third and twenty-fourth of December, 1882, he caused the wood to be drawn and piled in three piles on said north-east quarter of section 10; that the parcel cut on section 10 was first hauled and piled on the south end of the large pile, and the other was piled along from that beginning so as to form a continuous pile; that there was in all about 54 cords; that the whole quantity was of like quality and value, and that the plaintiff knew how much came from each section; that the defendant claimed that the entire bulk came from land which he owned on section 10, and insisted that it was his property; that plaintiff explained to defendant that he was able to state what quantity was taken from section 10 and would point it out, and that defendant might take away that portion; that the defendant insisted that if any part came from his land he was entitled to take the whole and did so; that this occurred in January, 1883, and prior to the 27th.

The defendant gave evidence tending to show that in October 1882, and prior to the alleged purchase of the plaintiff, he bought the north-east quarter of section 10; that the land was unoccupied and wild; that he afterwards learned that before his purchase Farmer and Duffy had been on, cutting wood, without authority; and on the twenty-seventh of January, 1883, he obtained a bill of sale of the wood they had so cut; that the quantity was much larger than the whole quantity contained in the piles before mentioned; that he had no other information, except the statement of the plaintiff, that any of the wood came from section 3 and that the plaintiff assured him that he did not know and could not ascertain how much came from the respective premises; that he told plaintiff that if he, the plaintiff, knew how much came from section 3, to point it out or give the quantity, and he would not take it; that although the plaintiff well knew how...