TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Carpenter v. Smith

Benjamin F. Carpenter, Richard Briggs, John F. Mabee and William French v. Lydia Ann Smith

Carpenter v. Smith, 40 Mich. 639 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 24, 1879
Judges
Graves, Other
Citations
40 Mich. 6391879 Mich. LEXIS 648
Headnotes
Trespass for removal of building. An owner of land cannot bring trespass against persons who have been in actual, entire and undisturbed possession, for removing a building from it.
Summary
Error to Kent. Trespass. Defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Graves

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Graves, J.

The plaintiffs in error acting under authority of the officers of the school district proceeded to remove the school house from the site it had some time occupied, and defendant in error who held the fee simple of the site sued them in trespass. The case was sent to a referee, who found the facts and held as matter of law that Mrs. Smith was entitled to judgment for five dollars and costs of suit. The circuit court affirmed the report and entered judgment accordingly, and defendants brought error.

The case appears plain. It is true Mrs. Smith had not leased the site, and in fact claimed the building and the right to enter. But the finding, we think, is clear that at the time of the alleged trespass, and for some years prior thereto, the district was in the actual entire and undisturbed possession.

Such being the ease, the act of the plaintiffs in error under the authority of the district was not an act of *641 unlawful force or of trespass against Mrs. Smith or any body else. Her possession was not disturbed, because she had none. The action was not maintainable. 1 Chitty’s Pl. [16 Am., from 7 Eng. ed.], pp. 71, 72 et seq.; Cooley on Torts, 437, 438; 1 Addison on Torts, 302, 289, 290; 2 Hilliard on Torts, 14.

The judgment must be reversed, and one entered here for plaintiff in error with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11936: 119052026peak 1905 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cameron v. Oakland County Gas & Oil Co.269 N.W. 227 (Mich. 1936)
  2. Hayward v. School District No. 9102 N.W. 999 (Mich. 1905)

Most recent

  1. Cameron v. Oakland County Gas & Oil Co.269 N.W. 227 (Mich. 1936)
  2. Hayward v. School District No. 9102 N.W. 999 (Mich. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list