Richards v. Tozer
| Decision Date | 15 July 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 451 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Leighton Richards v. George Tozer |
Heard July 8, 1873
Error to Lapeer Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
W Hemingway and H. Geer, for plaintiff in error.
J. M Wattles and A. C. Baldwin, for defendant in error.
Campbell, J., did not sit in this case.
The plaintiff in error brought trover for a quantity of pine saw logs cut and taken from the N. W. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4 of section 2, in Deerfield, in Lapeer county. Verdict and judgment passing against him, he brought the case here on writ of error and bill of exceptions.
It seems that this lot in question was unoccupied, and the plaintiff, in order to establish his right to the logs, gave evidence that in 1862 he obtained a tax deed of the land for the taxes of 1860, and in December, 1863, quit-claimed to Nelson Newman, who held the patent title; that in and by this quit-claim he excepted and reserved to himself an undivided half of the pine timber, with the right to enter and take it away before 1868. He also gave evidence that the consideration for this quit-claim to Newman was this timber as reserved in the deed.
The plaintiff founded his right to the logs sued for, upon this provision in the quit-claim deed, and his whole claim rested ultimately upon it. The defendant was allowed, under objection, to show an oral purchase of the land and timber by him, of Newman, in 1868, and also to question the tax title of which Newman had taken an assignment through the quit-claim deed which contained the reservation in the plaintiff's favor. Besides this the court charged that the plaintiff was required to show, in order to recover, that he had title to the land, and also charged in substance that the defendant was in a situation which allowed him to show, and that he had shown, that the tax title was invalid. The effect of this charge was equivalent to a direction to find for the defendant.
The plaintiff objects to these rulings, and insists that they require this Court to reverse the judgment. But at this stage of the inquiry we encounter another question, which is whether, admitting that the court erred, it is made to appear that the plaintiff was prejudiced. Because, in order to reverse, there must not only be error, but one which was prejudicial. If he was not entitled to recover upon the showing made, if his case lacked some fundamental, some indispensable ingredient, then a charge to find against him was not only admissible, but proper, and incorrect rulings were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smalley v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.
...to him constitute no ground for a reversal. (Hopkins v. Railroad, 78 Ill. 32; Chambers v. Grout, 63 Iowa 342, 19 N.W. 209; Richards v. Tozer, 27 Mich. 451; Prairie Tp. v. Hoseleu, 3 N.D. 328, 55 N.W. 938; Milford v. La Rue, 17 Neb. 418, 23 N.W. 8; Maynard v. Locomotive, etc., Assn., 16 Utah......
-
Kerschensteiner v. N. Mich. Land Co.
...for the court critically reviewed the prior Michigan cases of Green v. Bennett, 23 Mich. 468;Monroe v. Bowen, 26 Mich. 524;Richards v. Tozer, 27 Mich. 451;Johnson v. Moore, 28 Mich. 3;Haskell v. Ayres, 32 Mich. 93;Utley v. Lumber Co., 59 Mich. 263, 26 N. W. 488;Wait v. Baldwin, 60 Mich. 626......
-
Hall v. Eastman, Gardiner & Co.
...the case comes directly within the previous decision of this court, and is ruled by said cases: Monroe v. Bowen, 25 Mich. 523; Richards v. Tozer, 27 Mich. 451; Johnson Monroe, 28 Mich. 3; Haskell v. Ayres, 32 Mich. 93. In Haskell v. Ayres, 32 Mich. 93, the court held that: "A contract for t......
- Indiana & Arkansas Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Eldridge