Turner v. Holland

33 N.W. 283, 65 Mich. 453, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 617
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 14, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 33 N.W. 283 (Turner v. Holland) 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
Turner v. Holland, 33 N.W. 283, 65 Mich. 453, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 617 (Mich. 1887).

Opinion

Champuin, J.

The complainants, nine in number, set forth in their bill of complaint that they are severally the owners in fee of certain lots in Hoyt’s subdivision of the James Biley reservation.

That the James Biley reservation is situated on the east, bank of the Saginaw river, having about a mile frontage on. the river, and extending to the west to the thread of the main channel of the river; that crossing said reserve, and. extending the whole length thereof, and forming a part of said river, is a bayou called “Emerson Bayou,” and between the bayou and the main channel of the Saginaw river is a middle ground, extending the whole length of said reserve, and for some considerable distance beyond on the bayou north, and forming a part thereof; that this bayou was formerly connected with the main channel of the Saginaw river south as well as north of the reserve, but, owing to the gradual growth and increase, of said middle ground, and the construction of streets and docks across, near, and adjoining the south end, it is now connected with said river on the north only; that the bayou on the north empties into the Saginaw river at a point distant about 80 rods from complainants’ lands, and, from that point to, in front of, and beyond said lands, such bayou is navigable for vessels drawing nine feet of water, and prior to the acts complained of, was used [455]*455for the purposes of navigation and commerce; and that the Saginaw river, from its mouth to a point south of the boundary line of said reserve, is a navigable river for vessels of like draft, and has been so used for the past 25 years and upwards.

That said reserve, including the middle ground, was formerly owned by Jesse Hoyt, and that, while he was such owner, he caused said reserve, including the middle ground, to be duly platted into lots, and the plat thereof to be duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds for Saginaw county; and afterwards said Hoyt conveyed by deed, with the usual covenants of warranty, and with apt and proper descriptions, the several parcels of land in said bill particularly described to complainants severally, or to the persons through whom complainants claim title, and each and every of said parcels of land were by said plat bounded on the west by said Emerson bayou, and in truth and in fact extended to the center line thereof, and that said Hoyt, in and by the convevauces to complainants, or to the persons through whom they claim title to the same, conveyed all his right, title, and interest in and to the whole of said lots, pieces, and parcels of said land, including the soil of said bayou, to the middle line thereof; and that their riparian rights are valuable, and enhance the value of their respective lots $1,000 or more.

That said Hoyt, in disregard of complainants’ rights, has claimed, since he sold the parcels of land to complainants and their grantors, and now claims, to own the soil under the water in said Emerson bayou, in front of said lots, between the easterly bank of the bayou and the center line of the channel thereof, and under such claim has, by lease or otherwise, assumed to assign, convey, and transfer to defendant Nelson Holland the right to use said Emerson bayou, including that portion claimed by complainants, for the purpose of storing saw-logs; that, at the time such lease or conveyance to Holland was executed, complainants’ deeds had been duly [456]*456recorded in the register’s office of Saginaw county, and he had notice of the riparian rights of complainants in said bayou, and that said Hoyt had no interest or claim therein that he. could lease, or otherwise sell or assign; and they-claim that the claim of Jesse Hoyt constitutes a cloud upon their title, and diminishes the market value of their land.

That said Nelson Holland owns and operates a large sawmill, situated on the bank of the Saginaw river, about 80 rods from the lands of complainants, and near the point where said bayou empties into the river, and that, acting with one Luther Holland, he has inclosed and converted the said Emerson bayou, in front of complainants’ lands, into booming grounds, by driving piles in and across said bayou at suitable distances, and connecting the same with boom-sticks, so that now there is no means of ingress or egress to and from said lands of complainants through the channel of said bayou, and they are severally wholly deprived, by the said wrongful acts of said Nelson and Luther Holland, of the use and enjoyment of their said riparian rights, who claim that said Nelson Holland has the exclusive right to use and control ,said bayou; that Luther Holland is acting as the agent of Nelson, and, before he did said acts, had knowledge and notice of complainants’ rights; that said Luther and Nelson Holland have, for several years past, operated said mill, and during such time claimed to have, and have exercised, exclusive control over said bayou, and have wholly excluded complain.ants therefrom, and from the use and enjoyment thereof; that, during the milling season, they have frequently caused ¡said bayou to be filled with saw-logs, and have held and retained them therein for long periods, and until such logs were wanted at the mill for sawing; that the bark has become loosened and detached from said logs, and has sunk to the bottom, whereby the waters of said bayou have been gradually filling up; that defendants, disregarding and ignoring the rights of complainants, threaten to continue the main[457]*457tenance and use of said boom, and to store saw-logs in said bayou.

Complainants pray that defendants may be decreed to remove all said obstructions, and for a perpetual injunction against their using said bayou for storing or booming logs therein in any manner which shall interfere with the rights and privileges of complainants as riparian owners.

After the bill was filed, Jesse Hoyt died, and the suit was revived against William L. Webber as the executor of Hoyt’s will.

The defendants answered, denying that complainants have any riparian rights in Emerson- bayou by reason of their ownership of the land, or that by the terms of the deeds, or by the terms of the plat, the said lots, so conveyed to said complainants, or any of them, or their grantors, extended into or embraced any portion of said bayou; and state that on such plat each parcel was indicated by figures, giving the exact length, from Washington street west, of each side boundary line, and that such lines were parallel to each other, said lots being each 150 feet wide, and that the giving the distance in this way, and the number of the lot, was the same, in. effect, as describing said lots by metes and bounds, giving the precise distance of each of the boundaries.

They deny that said lots were bounded on the west by the Emerson bayou, excepting as the distance measured may bring them to or near to the edge of the water, or into the water, or that it was ever intended that the bayou should be treated as the western boundary of said lots. They deny that the claim made by defendants constitutes a cloud upon complainants’ title, or in any way diminishes the market value of their lands.

The defendants set up and claim that defendant Webber, as trustee under the will of said Jesse Hoyt, is the sole owner of so much of the James Riley reserve as is covered by the waters of the said Emerson bayou, except so far as the said [458]

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

Related

Scott C Saunders v. Jeffrey J Rhodes
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2020
2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babel
793 N.W.2d 633 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2010)
Jonkers v. Summit Township
747 N.W.2d 901 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2008)
Weimer v. Gilbert
151 N.W.2d 348 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1967)
Poch v. Urlaub
98 N.W.2d 509 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1959)
Hall v. Wantz
57 N.W.2d 462 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1953)
Stolte v. Krentel.
260 N.W. 127 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1935)
Bauman v. Barendregt
231 N.W. 70 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1930)
Hobart v. Hall
174 F. 433 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, 1909)
Turner v. the James Canal Co.
99 P. 520 (California Supreme Court, 1909)
Black v. Diver
74 P. 1123 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)
Brown v. Milliman
78 N.W. 785 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Sands v. Gambs
64 N.W. 741 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)
Concord Manufacturing Co. v. Robertson
25 A. 718 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)
Sterling v. Jackson
37 N.W. 845 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 N.W. 283, 65 Mich. 453, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-holland-mich-1887.