Watson v. Peters
Decision Date | 09 April 1873 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | James Watson v. William Peters |
Heard January 13, 1873; January 14, 1873.
Error to Bay circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Maxwell & Hyde, for plaintiff in error.
Henry H. Swan, A. B. Maynard and C. I. Walker, for defendant in error.
This is an action of ejectment, brought to recover premises described as "that part of a piece of land formerly called Sand Island, lying in the Saginaw river, being part of fraction number three, of section twenty-eight, in township fourteen north, of range five east, being that part of said Sand Island lying between the south line of the John Riley reservation, in said township fourteen north, of range five east, and the line between lots two and three, of block number two, on the plat of Portsmouth, in common use, as extended westward to the main channel of the Saginaw river." The defendant was in possession of block one, and of lots one and two, on block two, on said plat of Portsmouth, claiming title thereto through conveyances from the original proprietors, and the land demanded lies between the lots so possessed by him and the main channel of the Saginaw river. By the plat the blocks mentioned front on the river and the westerly line of the blocks on the plat is drawn along the shore line of the river. Water street bounds these blocks on the east. The plaintiff claims what is called in his declaration Sand Island, under conveyances from the original proprietors, made, as the defendant claims, after they had conveyed blocks one and two aforesaid. The deed to the plaintiff is of all of said fraction three lying west of Water street; and this he supposes gives him all between Water street and the main channel of the river, not previously conveyed.
From the evidence it appears that the original plat shows a middle ground in front of these blocks, without particularly designating its nature, or showing any definite purpose of the proprietors in respect thereto. The water between this middle ground and the east shore was navigable to a point above blocks one and two. What further appears in regard to the middle ground, we copy from the record: "There was evidence introduced by the defendant, tending to show that the middle ground, called Sand Island, was nearly always under water, usually covered with the waters of Saginaw river, except when the south wind blew; and evidence was introduced by the plaintiff, tending to show that some parts of the said island were formerly always above water, and that it was only entirely submerged during heavy north winds, and during the spring freshets.
The circuit judge charged the jury that, "the owner of a lot in this plat, bounded on the stream, has the same ownership as that of the owner as grantee in a deed bounded by the river outside the plat;" in other words, that he owned to the main channel of the river, and consequently the plaintiff could not recover.
This charge presents the main point in the case, though one other is necessary to be considered, as it involves the record of a deed under which the defendant claimed, and which was essential to proof of his title. The record purported to be of a deed from Henry Howard and Gardiner D. Williams to Joseph F. Marsac, and the question raised upon it was, whether the deed was sufficiently witnessed to entitle it to record. The statute required an attestation by two witnesses. By the record the deed would seem to be duly signed, and it was attested as follows:
Then followed a certificate of acknowledgment by Henry Howard before D. E. Harbaugh, as justice of the peace of Wayne county, and by G. D. Williams before Thomas Simpson, a notary public of Saginaw county. The first mentioned certificate is dated several months before the other.
Upon the face of this record there is certainly nothing to indicate that the deed was not duly attested. The attestation by Prichtette and Harbaugh is apparently to an execution by both the grantors, and nothing on the face of the papers indicates the contrary, unless it be the fact that Harbaugh took the acknowledgment of one and not of the other. This fact is certainly a little remarkable if he witnessed the execution by both, before either acknowledgment had been taken; and the inference that he attested the execution by one only, is very forcible. But there is no such inference from the face of the papers as to Pritchette, unless the fact of his name appearing above Harbaugh's can be regarded as evidence that he must have signed first, and consequently could not have attested Williams' signature, who appears to have acknowledged, and may therefore be presumed to have executed the deed afterwards. But the date of the acknowledgment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sterling v. Jackson
...these cases, or others cited by counsel for plaintiff, give any support to plaintiff's claim. See Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125; Watson v. Peters, 26 Mich. 508; Maxwell v. Bridge Co., 41 453; Richardson v. Prentiss, 48 Mich. 88, 11 N.W. 819; Boom Co. v. Adams, 44 Mich. 404, 6 N.W. 857; Cla......
-
Hobart v. Hall
... ... Benson, 8 Mich. 18 (77 Am.Dec. 435); ... Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125; Ryan v ... Brown, 18 Mich. 196 (100 Am.Dec. 154); Watson v ... Peters, 26 Mich. 508; Pere Marquette Boom Co. v ... Adams, 44 Mich. 403 (6 N.W. 857); Fletcher v ... Thunder Bay, etc., Co., 51 ... ...
-
Trust v. Babel
...evidenced an alternative intent, such as if a proprietor had reserved riparian rights. As Justice Cooley explained in Watson v. Peters, 26 Mich. 508, 517-518 (1873):If, on the face of the plat, by reference to which the defendant bought, there was anything which distinctly indicated an inte......
-
Thies v. Howland
...plattors intended to convey exclusive riparian rights to "front lot" owners. See Richardson, 48 Mich. 91-92, 11 N.W.2d 819; Watson v. Peters, 26 Mich. 508, 516 (1873) (riparian rights is an important element in determining the price of lots and inducing buyers to purchase).9 In Cabal v. Ken......