Harlow v. Lake Superior Iron Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Marquette Circuit. The lease, although containing several provisions of a very unusual character, was intended to and does convey the undivided one-half of the land itself, and not a mere mining right.
Read the full summary
Error to Marquette Circuit. The lease, although containing several provisions of a very unusual character, was intended to and does convey the undivided one-half of the land itself, and not a mere mining right. The demise is of the undivided half of a quarter section of land, and the language in which it is expressed is entirely unequivocal, and the subsequent provision, by which the lessor binds himself not to sell or encumber the interest thereby leased until the lessee had first been allowed the privilege of purchasing “said undivided one-half,” and granting the lessee the right at any…
1Opinion of the Court
Marston, J:
Plaintiff in error, claiming to be owner of an undivided one-fourth leasehold interest, for ninety-nine years from and after Sept. 28, 1850, in the southwest quarter of section ten, township 47 north, of range 27 west, in 1875 brought an action of ejectment to recover .possession thereof.
Upon the trial, to maintain the action, he introduced in evidence:
First; A certified transcript of articles of incorporation, dated February 21, 1853, whereby the defendant became a body corporate;
Second, Original articles ofv) copartnership of the Marquette Iron Company;
Third, A copy of a patent,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Miller v. Lutheran Conference and Camp Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Negaunee Iron Co. v. Iron Cliffs Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1903
- Hubscher & Son, Inc v. StoreyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
- De Grasse v. Verona Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.