Legal Opinion

Moore v. Pear

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1902PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Allegan; Padgham, J. Trespass quare clausum fregit by Horace D. Moore against John H. Pear and others. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the Court

Hooker, O. J.

This action is trespass quare clausum. The locus in quo is wild land, unimproved except as the village of Saugatuek has fitted and used it for a part of its park. The defendants are its servants, who removed the plaintiff’s tent by direction of the village council, and they defend upon the ground that the village had title and was' in possession. Upon the other hand, the plaintiff claims to have been in possession at the time of the alleged trespass. Each party claimed title under tax and other *514deeds and by adverse possession. The learned circuit judge did not submit the question…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hayes v. LivingstonMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Newcomb v. LoveMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mahar v. Grand Rapids Terminal Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Tittiger v. JohnsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API