Carpenter v. Smith

Michigan Supreme Court

Carpenter v. Smith

40 Mich. 639, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 648

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 Mich. 639 (Carpenter v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. Smith, 40 Mich. 639, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 648 (Mich. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Graves, J.

The plaintiffs in error acting under authority of the officers of the school district proceeded to remove the school house from the site it had some time occupied, and defendant in error who held the fee simple of the site sued them in trespass. The case was sent to a referee, who found the facts and held as matter of law that Mrs. Smith was entitled to judgment for five dollars and costs of suit. The circuit court affirmed the report and entered judgment accordingly, and defendants brought error.

The case appears plain. It is true Mrs. Smith had not leased the site, and in fact claimed the building and the right to enter. But the finding, we think, is clear that at the time of the alleged trespass, and for some years prior thereto, the district was in the actual entire and undisturbed possession.

Such being the ease, the act of the plaintiffs in error under the authority of the district was not an act of [641]*641unlawful force or of trespass against Mrs. Smith or any body else. Her possession was not disturbed, because she had none. The action was not maintainable. 1 Chitty’s Pl. [16 Am., from 7 Eng. ed.], pp. 71, 72 et seq.; Cooley on Torts, 437, 438; 1 Addison on Torts, 302, 289, 290; 2 Hilliard on Torts, 14.

The judgment must be reversed, and one entered here for plaintiff in error with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Graves, J.

The plaintiffs in error acting under authority of the officers of the school district proceeded to remove the school house from the site it had some time occupied, and defendant in error who held the fee simple of the site sued them in trespass. The case was sent to a referee, who found the facts and held as matter of law that Mrs. Smith was entitled to judgment for five dollars and costs of suit. The circuit court affirmed the report and entered judgment accordingly, and defendants brought error.

The case appears plain. It is true Mrs. Smith had not leased the site, and in fact claimed the building and the right to enter. But the finding, we think, is clear that at the time of the alleged trespass, and for some years prior thereto, the district was in the actual entire and undisturbed possession.

Such being the ease, the act of the plaintiffs in error under the authority of the district was not an act of [641]*641unlawful force or of trespass against Mrs. Smith or any body else. Her possession was not disturbed, because she had none. The action was not maintainable. 1 Chitty’s Pl. [16 Am., from 7 Eng. ed.], pp. 71, 72 et seq.; Cooley on Torts, 437, 438; 1 Addison on Torts, 302, 289, 290; 2 Hilliard on Torts, 14.

The judgment must be reversed, and one entered here for plaintiff in error with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Mich. 639, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-smith-mich-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack