Summary
This is a Michigan Supreme Court opinion in an ejectment action concerning a disputed water lot near the St. Joseph River. The court addresses whether the plaintiffs established title and whether the defendant's claim of occupying a different lot raised a boundary dispute that could not be resolved in summary proceedings. The court affirms the judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that ejectment was the proper remedy.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs established sufficient title to maintain ejectment.
- Whether further proof of title is unnecessary when the plaintiff and the defendant's grantor derived title from the same source.
- Whether boundary lines can be tried in a proceeding before a circuit court commissioner, or whether ejectment is the proper remedy.
Holdings
- A plaintiff in ejectment who shows title running back for a long time through a series of conveyances from persons in possession as owners is presumed to hold by direct chain of title from the government, unless the defendant claims under someone who was in a position to disturb that presumption.
- Where a plaintiff in ejectment and the person under whom the defendant claims possession derived title from the same source, further proof of title by the plaintiff is unnecessary.
- Boundary lines cannot be tried in a proceeding before a circuit court commissioner; ejectment is the proper remedy.
Factual background
This is an ejectment action for a portion of a water lot on the southerly shore of the St. Joseph River. In 1845, the federal government improved the harbor by moving the river's course northward, and the dock was carried out accordingly. In 1887, James F. Joy conveyed lots to John Wallace and E. A. Graham. Wallace conveyed to plaintiffs a portion of lot 449. Defendant went into possession under a lease from Joy and later occupied under the bridge under a lease from the railroad, paying rent to Joy until Joy's conveyance to Wallace. When plaintiffs bought, they demanded rent, but defendant claimed he was on lot 450, not lot 449. Plaintiffs gave notice to quit and commenced ejectment. The court found as a fact that the river bank had been formed at the dock line by accretions after the change in the river's course, and that it was understood by former owner Morrison, Graham, and Wallace that the river bank and dock line were identical.
Procedural history
The cause was tried by the court, and findings were submitted. Defendant appealed. The lower court was the Berrien County Circuit Court, per Judge O'Hara.