ADVERSE POSSESSION-POSSESSION UNDER MISTAKE AS TO TRUE BOUNDARY

Authors

Rosemary Scott S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Land purchased by the plaintiff's husband in 1911 was surrounded by a fence which included the land in dispute. All of the enclosed area was of a different grading from the land to the west of it. The plaintiff's husband cultivated the area later disputed, tore down buildings on it and improved the entire property during the succeeding seventeen years. When the defendant purchased the adjacent land in 1935 the dividing fence was down but the difference in grading between the two parcels of land remained the same. The defendant, after a survey was made of the land in 1939, occupied the disputed area. In the ejectment suit brought by the plaintiff the lower court gave judgment for the plaintiff and denied the defendant a directed verdict and a motion for a new trial. Defendant appealed. Held, affirmed. Title may be gained by adverse possession even though there is mistake in marking out the boundaries. Yatczak v. Cloon, 313 Mich. 584, 22 N.W. (2d) 112 (1946).

Recommended Citation

Rosemary Scott S.Ed., ADVERSE POSSESSION-POSSESSION UNDER MISTAKE AS TO TRUE BOUNDARY, 45 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1946).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol45/iss2/7