Home/Michigan Supreme Court/Hooker v. City of Grosse Pointe

Hooker v. City of Grosse Pointe

44 N.W.2d 134, 328 Mich. 621, 1950 Mich. LEXIS 394
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 2, 1950
DocketDocket 74, Calendar 44,812
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 44 N.W.2d 134 (Hooker v. City of Grosse Pointe) 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
Hooker v. City of Grosse Pointe, 44 N.W.2d 134, 328 Mich. 621, 1950 Mich. LEXIS 394 (Mich. 1950).

Opinion

Sharpe, J.

On April 19,1948, plaintiffs filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court of Wayne county to quiet title to lots Nos 15, 16 and 17 Lakeland Subdivision of westerly 204 feet of private claim 586, south of Jefferson avenue, Crosse Pointe, Wayne county, Michigan, as shown on the accompanying map, exhibit 2.

Under the present status of the cause the property involved is a small triangular parcel of land adjacent to the southeasterly corner of lot No 16 and a triangular parcel of land adjacent to the easterly portion of lot No 17 as well as a parcel of land beginning at the southeast corner of lot No 17; thence easterly along the southerly line of lot 17 extended, 54.08 feet; thence southerly along the easterly line of lots 1 to 16 extended of said Lake-land Subdivision, 60.77 feet to a concrete breakwater; thence westerly along said breakwater 54.20 feet; thence northerly 62.35 feet to the point of beginning.

In 1889, a subdivision plat was recorded. The plat covered property both north and south of Jefferson avenue including the disputed property. The plat contained strips 100.10 feet wide running through the middle of the plat. See exhibit 3. The dedica *623 tion clause contains the following: “And that the street—-shown on said plat is hereby dedicated to the use of the public.”

In 1890, another plat covering the same property south of Jefferson avenue was recorded. This plat superimposed on this property 4 lots running north and south from Jefferson avenue to Lake St. Clair.

In 1891, another plat was recorded covering only the westerly portion of the original plat south of Jefferson avenue and contained the words “Lake-land avenue” through the middle with the designation “private way” found in the westerly section of “Lakeland avenue.” The lots are numbered from 1 to 17, all lots being south of Jefferson avenue and west of Lakeland avenue. The dedication clause contains the following: “The streets and alleys shown on said plat are hereby dedicated to the use of the public.” The plat extended to the shore line and indicated a flaring of lots 16 and 17.

The records of the-village of Crosse Pointe at the time of the filing of the plats are incomplete and there is no written record of a formal acceptance of any dedication found in any of the plats. There was evidence introduced showing use of Lakeland avenue by the public for the purpose of hauling water and ice from the lake and for the purpose of gaining access to the lake for recreation purposes. In 1912, the village council of Crosse Pointe voted to improve Lakeland avenue with a tar-bound surface and later it was surfaced with concrete. At the pres: ent time a hedge borders the westerly curb line of Lakeland avenue separating the travelled portion from the adjacent lots. In our discussion of the issues involved in this case reference will he made to the plat of 1891 showing Lakeland avenue and the private way.

The cause came on for trial and plaintiffs urged there and on appeal that the west § of Lakeland

*624

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

Related

Scott M. Favre v. Jourdan River Estates, LLC
148 So. 3d 361 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2014)
BEACHCROFT PROPERTIES v. City of Alabaster
949 So. 2d 899 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2006)
Donaldson v. ALCONA CTY. BD., RD. COMM'RS
558 N.W.2d 232 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1997)
Donaldson v. Alcona County Board of County Road Commissioners
558 N.W.2d 232 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1996)
Vivian v. Roscommon County Board of Road Commissioners
446 N.W.2d 161 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1989)
Eyde Bros. Development Co. v. Roscommon County Board of Road Commissioners
411 N.W.2d 814 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1987)
Village of Lakewood Club v. Rozek
215 N.W.2d 780 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1974)
Jones v. Crawford County Road Commission
206 N.W.2d 267 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
Ackerman v. Spring Lake Township
163 N.W.2d 230 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1968)
Smith v. Auditor General
155 N.W.2d 822 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1968)
Rice v. Clare County Road Commission
78 N.W.2d 651 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1956)
Baker v. Roscommon County Road Commission
46 N.W.2d 579 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 N.W.2d 134, 328 Mich. 621, 1950 Mich. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooker-v-city-of-grosse-pointe-mich-1950.