Legal Opinion

Prowell v. Neuendorf

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 19, 1905No. Docket No. 25PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Ejectment by Ottielge Prowell against Charles Neuendorf and Anna Neuendorf. There was judgment for defendants, notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, and plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

The plaintiff brought an action of ejectment to recover a strip of land claimed by her to be a portion of a lot admittedly owned and occupied by her. Defendants claimed that a line had been established between plaintiff’s property and theirs by agreement and acquiescence. The circuit judge submitted this question of fact to the jury, who found for the plaintiff. Later, on a motion for a new trial, the circuit judge set aside the verdict for plaintiff, and without any new trial directed a verdict for defendants and entered judgment thereon. This practice was without precedent and unauthorized.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Central Savings Bank v. O'ConnorMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Plunkett v. Detroit Electric Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Napier v. JacobsMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1915

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API