Hoban v. Cable
102 Mich. 206, 1894 Mich. LEXIS 1233, 60 N.W. 466 (1894)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A deed's property description that contains an erroneous directional course is nevertheless valid if the grantor's intent to convey a specific, identifiable parcel is made clear by other parts of the description, such as references to fixed monuments like a street.
Facts:
- Eliza R. McLeod, the apparent owner of a property, conveyed a portion of it to Laurie McLeod in 1862.
- The plaintiff, Hoben, subsequently derived title to this portion from Laurie McLeod's heirs.
- The 1862 deed described a boundary line as running 'south, 62 degrees 15 minutes west, 158.96 feet, to Market street'.
- Following this precise compass direction would not actually lead to Market Street and would fail to enclose the described lot.
- However, the deed also specified that the starting point was on Market Street and that the final boundary line would run along Market Street back to the start.
- The deed further identified the land as 'a lot hereby intended to be conveyed' situated next to a known lot belonging to Ambrose R. Davenport.
- The defendant, Cable, later took possession of the property.
- Cable occupied the land under an agreement with Ronald McLeod, acting as a representative for Laurie McLeod's heirs, to use the property in exchange for paying the taxes on it.
Procedural Posture:
- Hoben, the plaintiff, brought an action of ejectment against Cable, the defendant, in the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of Hoben.
- Cable, the defendant, appealed the trial court's judgment to this appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a deed's property description, which contains an erroneous directional course that fails to create a closed parcel, render the deed a legal nullity even when other parts of the description, such as a reference to a known street, make the grantor's intent to convey a specific lot clear?
Opinions:
Majority - Montgomery, J.
No, a deed's property description with an erroneous directional course is not a nullity if the grantor's intent is otherwise clear from the instrument as a whole. The court reasoned that while one directional call in the deed was incorrect, other elements provided certainty as to the grantor's intent. The description explicitly stated that the boundary line terminated at Market Street, a fixed monument. The court prioritized this clear reference to a monument over the erroneous compass direction, following the legal principle that monuments control over courses and distances. By disregarding the incorrect direction and drawing the line to the intended monument (Market Street), a closed and identifiable parcel is formed that matches all other descriptive elements in the deed. The court also held that Cable's adverse possession claim failed because his occupation of the land was permissive, not hostile, as evidenced by his agreement to pay taxes in exchange for use.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the foundational principle of deed interpretation that courts should strive to effectuate the grantor's clear intent rather than voiding instruments over technical errors. The ruling establishes that fixed, identifiable monuments mentioned in a deed description will take precedence over conflicting and erroneous courses and distances. This provides stability and predictability in property law by preventing land titles from being defeated by simple scrivener's errors, so long as the intended parcel can be reasonably identified. Future cases involving flawed legal descriptions will look to the document as a whole for evidence of intent, with a heavy emphasis on physical monuments.
