Shields v. Collins

I must respectfully dissent from the majority holding. My review of the facts reveals that the trial court found that defendants made an inquiry to plaintiffs predecessor in title as to the location of the boundary line. In response, defendant was told that the fence marked the boundary. Concluding that this inquiry raised sufficient doubt to invoke the doctrine of acquiescence, the trial judge held that the boundary was thereby fixed at the fence line.

Acquiescence is an ancient doctrine, existing in our jurisprudence for over one hundred years. See Smith v Hamilton, 20 Mich 433; 4 Am Rep 398…