Klein v. Dudley

Michigan Court of Appeals

Klein v. Dudley

229 N.W.2d 831, 59 Mich. App. 515, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1372

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 1975

DocketDocket No. 19763

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 229 N.W.2d 831 (Klein v. Dudley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Klein v. Dudley, 229 N.W.2d 831, 59 Mich. App. 515, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1372 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

O’Hara, J.

We accept in its entirety Judge T. M. Burns’ recitation of facts and his recitation of the procedural sequence in this case.

We are, however, in respectful disagreement with his legal conclusions.

The deed to the township is for a right-of-way for foot or vehicular traffic. Thus there is no reason why the township could not utilize the realty for a park trail or other public purpose which would in no wise contravene the McNitt act.¹

Second, we disagree that the limitation of the deed, to wit, "extending from the intersection of Avenue 'A’ and Lenox Avenue southeasterly across Lots 1, 2, 3, and 34 of Block 1, of Bass Lake Park to the shoreline of Bass Lake” is sufficiently lacking in definiteness to meet the test of certainty of description.

We agree with the trial court that the indenture was an absolute grant and enforceable as such. There is plenty of time to restrain any prohibited use of the property by the township if and when it ever occurs.

We would affirm the trial judge, subject to the foregoing limitations.

Quinn, J., concurred.

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