Hendershott v. Moore

Michigan Supreme Court

Hendershott v. Moore

154 N.W. 17, 188 Mich. 364, 1915 Mich. LEXIS 1055

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 1915

DocketDocket No. 36

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 N.W. 17 (Hendershott v. Moore) 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

Hendershott v. Moore, 154 N.W. 17, 188 Mich. 364, 1915 Mich. LEXIS 1055 (Mich. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOKE, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Upon the trial of said cause the complainant introduced much testimony tending to show acts of dominion over the disputed island and possession of the same consistent with its character. Defendants offered no testimony. A decree was rendered fixing title to said island in complainant and the heirs of William E. Powers, deceased, declaring defendants to be without any title [366]*366or interest in said land, and permanently enjoining them from further trespassing thereon.

At the outset we are met with a question of jurisdiction. So fair as this record discloses, defendants committed a simple trespass upon lands claimed by the complainant to belong to himself and the heirs of his cograntee. That trespass consisted in going upon the lands in question, and erecting, or starting to erect, .a building. Such an act on the part of the defendants would, it appears to us, have no tendency to injure the freehold, and is not a trespass of such a nature as, under the authorities in this State, would clothe a court of equity with jurisdiction. See Nicholls v. Lumber Co., 157 Mich. 234 (121 N. W. 742), and cases there cited.

The bill of complaint is dismissed, with costs of both courts to defendants, and complainant remitted to his remedy at law.

Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. The late Justice McAbvay took no part in this decision.

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

BROOKE, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Upon the trial of said cause the complainant introduced much testimony tending to show acts of dominion over the disputed island and possession of the same consistent with its character. Defendants offered no testimony. A decree was rendered fixing title to said island in complainant and the heirs of William E. Powers, deceased, declaring defendants to be without any title [366]*366or interest in said land, and permanently enjoining them from further trespassing thereon.

At the outset we are met with a question of jurisdiction. So fair as this record discloses, defendants committed a simple trespass upon lands claimed by the complainant to belong to himself and the heirs of his cograntee. That trespass consisted in going upon the lands in question, and erecting, or starting to erect, .a building. Such an act on the part of the defendants would, it appears to us, have no tendency to injure the freehold, and is not a trespass of such a nature as, under the authorities in this State, would clothe a court of equity with jurisdiction. See Nicholls v. Lumber Co., 157 Mich. 234 (121 N. W. 742), and cases there cited.

The bill of complaint is dismissed, with costs of both courts to defendants, and complainant remitted to his remedy at law.

Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. The late Justice McAbvay took no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 N.W. 17, 188 Mich. 364, 1915 Mich. LEXIS 1055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendershott-v-moore-mich-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack