Village of Spring Lake v. Thum

Michigan Supreme Court

Village of Spring Lake v. Thum

253 Mich. 381

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1931

DocketDocket No. 100, Calendar No. 30,389

StatusPublished

This text of 253 Mich. 381 (Village of Spring Lake v. Thum) 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

Village of Spring Lake v. Thum, 253 Mich. 381 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff, a tenant in common with defendant Otto Thiim, of real estate bordering Spring lake, in Ottawa county, filed a bill against defendant Otto Thum and wife for partition thereof. After answers filed by defendants, a stipulation was entered into, providing for the appointment by the trial court of three commissioners in_ partition. Such commissioners were appointed, made partition of the premises, and, upon the coming in and filing of their report, defendants filed exceptions thereto, and the trial court, after hearing the same, modified the report of the commissioners by giving defendants more land than was awarded them by the commissioners,- and defendants appeal. The question in dispute is one of fact. Considering all the evidence, we think the conclusion' arrived at by the trial court substantially correct, and its decree is affirmed, with costs.

BuTzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

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

Potter, J.

Plaintiff, a tenant in common with defendant Otto Thiim, of real estate bordering Spring lake, in Ottawa county, filed a bill against defendant Otto Thum and wife for partition thereof. After answers filed by defendants, a stipulation was entered into, providing for the appointment by the trial court of three commissioners in_ partition. Such commissioners were appointed, made partition of the premises, and, upon the coming in and filing of their report, defendants filed exceptions thereto, and the trial court, after hearing the same, modified the report of the commissioners by giving defendants more land than was awarded them by the commissioners,- and defendants appeal. The question in dispute is one of fact. Considering all the evidence, we think the conclusion' arrived at by the trial court substantially correct, and its decree is affirmed, with costs.

BuTzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 Mich. 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-spring-lake-v-thum-mich-1931.