Case Name: ROSS v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-06-23
Citations: 17 Mich. App. 638
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,015
Parties: ROSS v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Judges: BEFORE: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Y. J. Brennan, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 17
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
ROSS v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
1. Property — -Real Property — Boundary Line — Changing op Line.
A boundary lino between quarter sections of land, which is also the boundary line between plaintiff’s and defendant’s property, ought not to be disturbed upon a mere disagreement between surveyors where the boundary line has gone unquestioned for a long time.
2. Appeal and Error — Findings op Fact.
Findings of faet made by the trial court will not be set aside by the Court of Appeals unless they are elearly erroneous (GCR 1963, 517.1).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 12 Am Jur 2d, Boundaries § 85 et seq.
[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 839.
Appeal from Baraga, Stephen D. Condon, J. Submitted Division 3 May 5, 1969, at Marquette.
(Docket No. 5,015.)
Decided June 23, 1969.
Rehearing denied August 1,1969.
Complaint by Joseph Ross against Ralph A. MacMullan, director of the Michigan Department of Conservation, to determine ownership of certain property and to enjoin the felling of trees and other construction work by defendant on the property in dispute. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Wisti, Jaashelainen $ Bourland, for plaintiff.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Nicholas V. Olds and Warren R. Snycler, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant.
BEFORE: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Y. J. Brennan, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a strip of land approximately 73 feet in width lying between adjacent landowners.
The trial court made a finding of fact after hearing testimony from surveyors representing both parties that plaintiff had sustained his burden of proof as to the correct boundary line established by blazed trees and public recognition. Where the boundary line between quarter sections of land has gone unquestioned for a long time it ought not to he disturbed upon a mere disagreement between surveyors. Case v. Trapp (1882), 49 Mich 59; Daley v. Gruber (1960), 361 Mich 358.
The findings of fact made by the trial court are not clearly erroneous and will not be set aside by this Court. GCR 1963, 517.1.
Affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.