Heighes v. Dollarville Lumber Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Heighes v. Dollarville Lumber Co.

71 N.W. 870, 113 Mich. 518, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 830

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 28, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 N.W. 870 (Heighes v. Dollarville Lumber Co.) 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

Heighes v. Dollarville Lumber Co., 71 N.W. 870, 113 Mich. 518, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 830 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.

The plaintiff’s brief asserts that he rented two lots from the defendant, with the privilege of building a house thereon, which was to he and remain his personal property; that the lease was oral, and the rent reserved, a dollar a year, which he paid so long as defendant owned the premises. Some two or three years later the defendant sold all of its property at Dollarville, including these lots, to the Danaher-Melendy Company, which continued the business previously conducted by the defendant, the plaintiff continuing in the employ of the new, as he had in that of the old, company. The Dana-her-Melendy Company did not evict the plaintiff, who remains in the occupancy of his house, so far as the record advises us; but four dollars per month have been deducted from his pay for rent' since said purchase.

This action is brought for the alleged conversion of the house. The circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that the plaintiff is, and has been since the house was built, in the full possession of the house and lots, which is conclusive that it has not been converted. If the house was his, the Danaher-Melendy Company got no title, and the plaintiff has a right to remove it at his pleasure, during the continuance of his lawful occupancy of the lots.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Hooker, J.

The plaintiff’s brief asserts that he rented two lots from the defendant, with the privilege of building a house thereon, which was to he and remain his personal property; that the lease was oral, and the rent reserved, a dollar a year, which he paid so long as defendant owned the premises. Some two or three years later the defendant sold all of its property at Dollarville, including these lots, to the Danaher-Melendy Company, which continued the business previously conducted by the defendant, the plaintiff continuing in the employ of the new, as he had in that of the old, company. The Dana-her-Melendy Company did not evict the plaintiff, who remains in the occupancy of his house, so far as the record advises us; but four dollars per month have been deducted from his pay for rent' since said purchase.

This action is brought for the alleged conversion of the house. The circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that the plaintiff is, and has been since the house was built, in the full possession of the house and lots, which is conclusive that it has not been converted. If the house was his, the Danaher-Melendy Company got no title, and the plaintiff has a right to remove it at his pleasure, during the continuance of his lawful occupancy of the lots.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 N.W. 870, 113 Mich. 518, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heighes-v-dollarville-lumber-co-mich-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack