42 Mich. 104 | Mich. | 1879
The circuit judge was under misapprehension when he instructed the jury that the plaintiff could not recover if they found that another person than the defendant was with him in occupation of the prem
The case does not show that the father claimed a right to occupy and enjoy the whole land jointly with the defendant; but if it had, the plaintiff would have been entitled to go to the jury on that question. The charge was broad enough to put the plaintiff out of court on the fact — which seems not to have been disputed— that the father occupied a part of the house.
The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.