132 Mich. 646 | Mich. | 1903
{after stating the facts).
That there was a fence around the entire parcel we consider of no significance. Such fence was necessary to the occupancy of each of the tenants. Nor is it conclusive that in the bill for partition and in the decree the lands
Counsel for appellant cite and rely upon Gage v. Sanborn, 106 Mich. 269 (64 N. W. 32), and Harris v. Creveling, 80 Mich. 249 (45 N. W. 85). In Gage v. Sanborn the suit was by summary proceedings to recover possession of lands sold upon mortgage foreclosure. The description was similar to that here, — two lots and a part of another. That holding was based upon the fact that there was no evidence to show that the lots were not adjoining and used as one parcel, and the onus probandi was upon the defendant. Harris v. Creveling was a similar case.
The decree of the court setting aside the sales is sustained.