Cochran v. Milligan

2 Citing cases

  1. Fowle v. Dushane

    No. 339913 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    When a boundary is established by a mutual agreement between the owners of adjacent properties—an agreement which follows a dispute between those owners over that same boundary—and the owners all subsequently acquiesce that the boundary, as actually used, corresponds to the boundary that was agreed upon, it will thereafter "be considered the true line between them," even if "the period of such acquiescence falls short of the time fixed by the statute of limitations for gaining title by adverse possession." Id., quoting Cochran v Milligan, 359 Mich 148, 151; 101 NW2d 292 (1960) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Acquiescence will be found where, over time, the owners generally "treated" a certain boundary as if it were the actual boundary.

  2. Pyne v. Elliott

    53 Mich. App. 419 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 9 times

    "`It has been frequently held in this state that where parties by mutual agreement, and for that express purpose, meet and fix a boundary line, and thereafter acquiesce in the line so established between them, such line will be considered the true line between them, notwithstanding the period of such acquiescence falls short of the time fixed by the statute of limitations for gaining title by adverse possession.'" Cochran v Milligan, 359 Mich. 148, 151; 101 N.W.2d 292 (1960), quoting Jones v Pashby, 67 Mich. 459; 35 N.W. 152 (1887). Accord: Escher v Bender, 338 Mich. 1, 6; 61 N.W.2d 143 (1953); Ennis v Stanley, 346 Mich. 296, 306; 78 N.W.2d 114 (1956); Rickheim v Boden, 369 Mich. 150, 154; 119 N.W.2d 620 (1963).