Carpenter v. Carpenter

Decided January 3, 1899

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1899-01-03

, presiding. Ejectment by Cora M. Carpenter against Augustus D. Carpenter and another for the undivided one-fifth of certain premises. From a judgment for defendants on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. With their plea of the general issue, defendants gave notice of a former suit in ejectment between certain parties, alleging it to be a bar to any right or title of the plaintiff to the premises described in the declaration.

Relies on Peterson v. Laik · Fenton v. Miller · Fenton v. Steere

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1899-01-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1913

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Grant, C. J.

¶1(after stating the facts). We think the learned circuit judge was in error. An ouster may be admitted by the pleadings. Newell, Ej. p. 133, § 16. The plea and notice constituted a deliberate assertion of title and possession hostile to plaintiff’s title. This, coupled with the testimony that defendant had been in possession for 12 years, claiming to own the entire title, was sufficient evidence of ouster. Fenton v. Miller, 94 Mich. 204. In addition to the authorities there cited at page 211, see, also, Newell, Ej. 134; Fenton v. Mackinac Circuit Judge, 76 Mich. 405, 409; Clason v. Rankin, 1 Duer, 337; adding s v. Canfield, 4 Conn. 482; Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541 (69 Am. Dec. 441); Whiteley v. Whiteley, 110 Mich. 556.

¶2Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.