Kilgannon v. Jenkinson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Clair. (Stevens,'J.) Trespass qu. cl. Defendant brings error. The usual order in marshaling boundaries is (1) natural boundaries ; (2) artificial marks; (3) adjacent boundaries; (4) course and distance ; but when it is plain that there is a mistake, or uncertainty, an inferior rule of location may control a higher: Fulwood v. Graham 1 Rich.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Clair. (Stevens,'J.) Trespass qu. cl. Defendant brings error. The usual order in marshaling boundaries is (1) natural boundaries ; (2) artificial marks; (3) adjacent boundaries; (4) course and distance ; but when it is plain that there is a mistake, or uncertainty, an inferior rule of location may control a higher: Fulwood v. Graham 1 Rich. (S. C.) 491; Loving v. Norton 8 Me. 61; Haynes v. Young 36 Me. 557 ; Newhall v. Lreson 8 Cush. 595; Nelson v. Hall 1 McL. 518; if there are no monuments, the land must be bounded by the course and distance given in the deed: MPver’s Lessee v.…
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.
This is an action of trespass quare clausum. The real question involved is one of title. ' The plaintiff recovered in the circuit court, and had treble damages assessed under How. Stat. § 7959. We may remark here that there seems to have been no valid ground for this increased recovery, as the trespass consisted in tearing down a fence which the defendant claimed had been wrongfully placed on his own land, and on the evidence no reason appears for doubting that the claim was made in good faith.
Plaintiff is owner of lot three of block seven of the subdivision of Fort Gratiot Military…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hoffman v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Kelly v. FineMichigan Supreme Court · 1958