Dubay v. Kelly

100 N.W. 677, 137 Mich. 345, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 568
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 27, 1904
DocketDocket No. 118
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 100 N.W. 677 (Dubay v. Kelly) 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
Dubay v. Kelly, 100 N.W. 677, 137 Mich. 345, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 568 (Mich. 1904).

Opinion

Moore, C. J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for-breach of covenant of seisin in a warranty deed dated June 25, 1900. The plaintiff recovered a judgment. The; defendant has brought the case here by writ of error.

A reference to the plat on the following page will aid in understanding the questions involved. The Juif estate was the owner of a quantity of real estate in the township of Gratiot. In 1898 and 1899 Mason L. Brown, an engineer and surveyor, was employed to survey, subdivide, and plat it for the heirs. He did so, and made a plat in all respects, like the annexed plat, except it did not have the broken line® on it showing the location of the fences. This plat was re[348]*348corded at page 117, Liber 512 of Deeds, Wayne county records. J une 25, 1900, by warranty deed, and for a consideration of $1,600, defendant conveyed to plaintiff lot 6 “according to the plat of the subdivision of the estate of Margaret Juif,-deceased, as recorded in Liber 512 of Deeds, page 117, Wayne county records.” It'is undisputed that when this deed was made defendant had neither title to nor possession of the whole of this lot 6. One Joseph L. Miner was, and still is, the owner and in possession of certain gores of lot 6, which aggregate nearly one-half acre. For the purpose of getting possession of these gores the plaintiff brought ejectment against Mr. Miner, and gave notice to Mr. Kelly to take charge of the case. Mr. Kelly paid no attention to the case. Upon the trial a judgment was rendered in favor of Mr. Miner, and his costs were taxed against the plaintiff in the sum of $43.40. The taxed bill of costs was offered in evidence. Plaintiff also gave evidence that he paid in that case an entry fee of $4, a stenographer’s fee of $3, and to Mr. Kelly $2.80 as witness fees, making a total of $53.20. Error is assigned on the admission of this testimony. Counsel says:

[347]*347

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

Related

Mickam v. Joseph Louis Palace Trust
849 F. Supp. 516 (E.D. Michigan, 1994)
Bremhorst v. Phillips Coal Co.
211 N.W. 898 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
Merchants' Nat. Bank of Clinton v. Otero
175 P. 781 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1918)
Madden v. Caldwell Land Co.
100 P. 358 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 N.W. 677, 137 Mich. 345, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubay-v-kelly-mich-1904.