90 Mich. 343 | Mich. | 1892
The defendant was prosecuted in the recorder’s court of Detroit, under a city ordinance, and convicted of the charge of obstructing and incumbering a public alley.*
It appeared on the trial that the premises were, in 1856, dedicated as a public alley, but that in 1888 the alley was fenced up by one Ball, who owned, the abutting property on both sides, and who had procured the passage of a resolution of the common council of the city vacating the alley in question, on condition that he (Ball) should dedicate and open another alley a little further south. Ball opened such new alley, and tendered a deed of it to the city, but was informed by the city attorney that no deed was necessary. In 1889, Ball conveyed to defendant all his title to the premises embraced in the original alley, as acquired by him under the resolution
Under these circumstances, the defendant’s good faith in attempting to maintain his alleged title to the locus in quo could hardly be questioned, and, so far as appears, was not questioned on the trial. At. the conclusion of the testimony the defendant moved the recorder to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the question of title could not in this proceeding be tried, which motion was denied, and is the only ground of error alleged.
The conviction cannot be sustained. See Beecher v. People, 38 Mich. 291; Jackson v. People, 9 Id. 122; Roberts v. Commissioners, 25 Id. 23; Willson v. Gifford, 42 Id. 454; Gregory v. Knight, 50 Id. 61.
The judgment of the recorder’s court will be set aside, and the prisoner discharged.
