Staub v. Tripp
| Decision Date | 04 September 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 110.,110. |
| Citation | 226 N.W. 667,248 Mich. 45 |
| Parties | STAUB v. TRIPP et ux. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Van Buren County; Glenn E. Warner, Judge.
Suit by Casper Staub, Jr., against Burrell Tripp and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
I. C. Montague, of Allegan, for appellants.
W. G. Bessey, of South Haven (A. M. Cummins, of Lansing, of counsel), for appellee.
Plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages for breach of covenant of title. In May, 1922, Mr. and Mrs. Tripp gave plaintiff a warranty deed of certain property located on the easterly shore of Lake Michigan in the city of South Haven. A pavillion known as the Big Casino was supposed to be located on the land conveyed. The deed contained the usual covenants, and the consideration was $40,000. The land was described as follows: ‘* * * Lots one to six inclusive, lots twenty five to thirty inclusive and the north half of lots seven and twenty-four, in Block twelve of Dyckman & Woodman's Addition to the Village (now city) of South Haven, intending to cover the parcel of land bounded on the north by Woodman street, on the east by North Shore Drive, on the south by Avery street, and on the west by Lake Michigan.’
Some time after he received his deed, plaintiff attempted to plat the land including that lying between the meander line and the water of the lake. His proposed plat was rejected by the Auditor General on the ground that the state owned the land west of the meander line and extending to the water's edge. A survey disclosed that lots 24 to 30, inclusive, as already platted, extended in a westerly direction beyond the meander line, which at this point is upwards of 200 feet back from the water. The casino building is more than 260 feet long and more than 100 feet wide. As located, it extends more than 65 feet west of the lot lines onto unplatted land. Three of the lots included in the building site as platted extend about 50 feet west of the meander line. In other words, the building extends substantially 135 feet west of the meander line. In addition to declaring upon the breach of covenant, to declaration also contains a count charging misrepresentation as to the building being located on the land conveyed, and recovery of damages is sought in consequence thereof. The case was trid before the court without a jury, defendants' title found to be defective as to the land lying west of the meander line, and damages in the sum of $6,000 awarded to plaintiff. Defendants review by writ of error.
In behalf of appellants it is urged that the deed expressly bounds the land on the west ‘by Lake Michigan,’ and that ‘the line of Lake Michigan is the meander line’; therefore there is no breach of covenant as to the land actually conveyed. The claim is made that this description by metes and bounds is more definite than that by lot numbers and therefore must control. This position is not tenable in this case. Defendants' deed specifically described and purported to convey lots which as platted included land west of the meander line and to which defendants had no title. So far as disclosed by the record, none of the parties were aware of this as the time the deed was given. There can be no doubt that both the grantors and the grantee consummated this transaction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilt v. Weber
...did not arise in Bankers' Trust Co. v. Weber, 244 Mich. 697, 222 N. W. 81;Newman v. Bump, 245 Mich. 665,244 N. W. 321, and Staub v. Tripp, 248 Mich. 45, 226 N. W. 667 (in the latter of which a rehearing has been ordered), which followed the Kavanaugh decisions, but merely as precedents and ......
-
Schneider v. Lipscomb County Nat. Farm Loan Ass'n
...So. 252, 42 Am.St.Rep. 486. And in one or two cases the same opinion is expressed when the paramount title is in the state. Staub v. Tripp, 248 Mich. 45, 226 N.W. 667. These decisions are influenced by statutory provisions, according to which a grantee of such land by another than the Unite......
-
Johnson v. Fischer, 224
...rehearing in Johnson v. Fischer, now before us. On rehearing, the Court said: 'The original opinion herein is reported in [Staub v. Tripp] 248 Mich. 45, 226 N.W. 667, and is in accord with the earlier decisions in the so-called Kavanaugh Cases. See Kavanaugh v. Rabior, 222 Mich. 68, 192 N.W......
-
Young v. Thendara, Inc.
...Rapids Trust Co. v. Doctor, 222 Mich. 248, 192 N.W. 641. Title against the State cannot be acquired by adverse possession. Staub v. Tripp, 248 Mich. 45, 226 N.W. 667. As an additional reason why plaintiffs fail to establish said easement by prescription, the proofs show that said use was by......