Home/Michigan Supreme Court/Rumrell v. Mingus

Rumrell v. Mingus

86 N.W.2d 792, 350 Mich. 571, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 301
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 24, 1957
DocketDocket 33, Calendar 47,146
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 N.W.2d 792 (Rumrell v. Mingus) 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
Rumrell v. Mingus, 86 N.W.2d 792, 350 Mich. 571, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 301 (Mich. 1957).

Opinion

*572 Black, J.

The question in this case is whether the chancellor was right in decreeing in favor of plaintiffs a permanent easement, for vehicular or “driveway” purposes (and incidental pedestrian use), over (a) the west 4.09 feet of premises owned by defendants Mingus and Cliff and (b) the east 5.91 feet of adjacent premises owned by defendant Garber Buick of Bay City.

Three separately-owned parcels of realty are contentiously involved. These parcels, situated in close proximity to Bay City’s business district, are designated throughout the record as “309 Adams,” “311 Adams” and “311 Tenth.” Each parcel for many years has been utilized for residence purposes and each of the houses standing thereon is quite old. Plaintiff Anna Rumrell is record owner of 309 Adams. Plaintiff Virgil O’Dell is executory purchaser, from plaintiff Anna Rumrell, of 309 Adams. Plaintiffs John E. and Anna Rumrell are owners of 311 Adams. 309 Adams and 311 Adams make up the dominant estates as adjudged below. Defendants Mingus and Cliff are owners of 311 Tenth. 311 Tenth, plus the mentioned adjacent premises owned by defendant Garber Buick, make up the servient estate as adjudged in the chancellor’s decree. Defendants Mingus and Cliff have appealed from such decree. Defendant Garber Buick has not.

Sketched exhibit 1 in the case (appearing at margin) is a helpful map of the respective parcels. Scrutiny thereof discloses — the north half of the platted alley having long since been duly vacated — that the claimed dominant owners and their predecessors have had no means of vehicular ingress and egress, from the rear of their lots to a public street, other than by the way as claimed by them.

Fir-st: "Was the easement as decreed. created by grant? The chancellor found affirmative answer in an ambiguously-worded deed of 3.09 Adams, made *574 in 1921 by the then owners (Josephus and Rachael Martin) of all 3 of these residence parcels. We agree with the chancellor in such regard, * yet are inclined to view that the presently summarized additional conveyances in the respective chains of title should be considered, with the mentioned conveyance of 1921, as providing forceful support of that which was decreed below. Turning first to the deed of 1921: By such deed Mr. and Mrs. Martin conveyed 309 Adams street “Reserving a right of driveway over and upon the west 16 feet of said piece of land for the benefit and use of the owners of lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 107.” Cloudy and uncertain meaning of this language of reservation and creation becomes apparent when one attempts to apply it to the physical situation then and now existent. This brings us to such additional conveyances, 4 in number.

*573

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

Related

Rogers v. Rogers
356 N.W.2d 288 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1984)
Aalsburg v. Cashion
180 N.W.2d 792 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1970)
Currie v. Fiting
134 N.W.2d 611 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1965)
Crew's Die Casting Corp. v. Davidow
120 N.W.2d 238 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 N.W.2d 792, 350 Mich. 571, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rumrell-v-mingus-mich-1957.