Curkendall v. People
This text of 36 Mich. 309 (Curkendall v. People) 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.
Opinion
Plaintiff in error was indicted for the statutory offense of feloniously setting fire to and burning a barn and adjoining shed of one Isaac Hagerman, in Amboy, the said [310]*310barn and shed “being within the curtilage of the dwelling house of him,” the said Hagerman.
The evidence showed that the barn was situated some fifteen rods from the house, with a public highway passing between them,' and a yard between the barn and the highway. In People v. Taylor, 2 Mich., 250, a barn one-third this distance from the dwelling house, but immediately connected with it by a lane, was held to be within the curtilage. But here, to say nothing of the distance, there was a distinct separation from the house by the highway; and the case cited cannot sustain the ruling.
The judgment must be reversed, and the prisoner discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
36 Mich. 309, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curkendall-v-people-mich-1877.