Cole v. Wells
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Clair. Ejectment. Defendant brings error. The premises- were conveyed by defendant’s mother to plaintiff’s husband August 14, 1872, under the following description: “All that certain piece or parcel of land situate and being in the city of Port Huron, county of St. Clair, and State of Michigan, and more particularly known and described as follows, to wit: Commencing on the northerly bank of Indian Creek, so called, with its intersection with the easterly side of…
Read the full summary
Error to St. Clair. Ejectment. Defendant brings error. The premises- were conveyed by defendant’s mother to plaintiff’s husband August 14, 1872, under the following description: “All that certain piece or parcel of land situate and being in the city of Port Huron, county of St. Clair, and State of Michigan, and more particularly known and described as follows, to wit: Commencing on the northerly bank of Indian Creek, so called, with its intersection with the easterly side of Water street; thence northerly along the easterly side of Water street, one hundred and sixty feet to a stake, thence…
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.
An examination of the description of the premises, and the reservation of the right to use the river in front thereof for the boomage of logs, as contained in the deed to the husband of plaintiff, shows a clear intention to convey the riparian rights pertaining to the land. The description is to the bank and along the bank of Black river. This takes to the water’s edge, and it is well settled in this State that the riparian rights to the center of the stream follow such a grant. Richardson v. Prentiss 48 Mich. 88.
Any attempt, in a case like this, to draw a line, at a point short of the water,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Richardson v. PrentissMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fletcher v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Harrington v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1891