Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Michigan Law School

Land Use Law

Conveyance

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Priorities: Ii, Edgar N. Durfee Mar 1959

Priorities: Ii, Edgar N. Durfee

Michigan Law Review

This is the second part of "Priorities" (also known as "Little Nemo") which was taken from Professor Durfee's teaching materials. The first part was published in the February issue-which was dedicated to the memory of Professor Durfee.


Priorities, Edgar N. Durfee Feb 1959

Priorities, Edgar N. Durfee

Michigan Law Review

Among those of Edgar Durfee's colleagues who were familiar with this paper it came to be known as "Little Nemo," for a reason that will become apparent to the reader. It is taken from his mimeographed Cases on Security, third edition, published in 1938. Possibly it was published earlier but there is a gap in the evidence. It did not appear in the first edition published in 1934 but no copy of the second edition has been located. In a few places its age shows, for example in the reference to Walsh as the author of the most recent …


Real Property - Easements - Implied Easement Of Access , Created By Conveyance With Reference To Plat, As Surviving Vacation Of Street, Allen Dewey Apr 1957

Real Property - Easements - Implied Easement Of Access , Created By Conveyance With Reference To Plat, As Surviving Vacation Of Street, Allen Dewey

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff sued to recover his deposit and search fee on a contract for the purchase of lands, a valuable part of which lay within the limits of two vacated streets. He contended the title was unmarketable because all owners of lands conveyed with reference to a plat showing these streets had by those conveyances acquired easements of access which survived the subsequent vacation of the streets by municipal authorities. The vacated streets had never been used and there were no physical indicia of them. Evidence showed all the lots on the map had access to the public highway system without …


Boundaries: Description V. Survey, Olin L. Browder, Jr. Mar 1955

Boundaries: Description V. Survey, Olin L. Browder, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

These propositions I first encountered as a student in law school. At that time they struck me as rather startling propositions, which could not be reconciled with other things I had learned about the law of conveyancing. I do not recall exactly how they were disposed of: whether they were to be regarded as the law on the subject or merely as a couple of striking aberrations. There were too many other matters demanding attention at that time to allow much fretting over so small a question. Upon returning to the classroom some years later-but now sitting on the other …


Future Interests - Effect Of Change Of Conditions On Rights Of Entry And Possibilities Of Reverter Created To Control The Use Of Land, Rinaldo L. Bianchi Dec 1954

Future Interests - Effect Of Change Of Conditions On Rights Of Entry And Possibilities Of Reverter Created To Control The Use Of Land, Rinaldo L. Bianchi

Michigan Law Review

It is the purpose of this comment to examine the skills which courts have developed to avoid inequitable results which might arise from forfeiture of estates, and, further, to attempt to demonstrate that judicial opinion may be in a transitional stage, tending to incorporate into law the equitable doctrine of change of conditions in disposing of cases involving rights of entry and possibilities of reverter.


Defeasance As A Restrictive Device In Michigan, William F. Fratcher Feb 1954

Defeasance As A Restrictive Device In Michigan, William F. Fratcher

Michigan Law Review

Quite apart from any question of their validity, the imposition of use restrictions by means of a prohibition was not practicable before the development of equitable remedies because the common law afforded no method of enforcing such a prohibition. One who conveyed land in violation of a prohibition on alienation might attempt to enforce the prohibition by attacking the validity of his own conveyance but one who violated a prohibition on use had neither motive nor method for challenging his own acts. Hence attempts to restrict use by common law devices are necessarily confined to penalty restraints and to limitations …