FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BAY CITY v. VANDEN BROOKS.

1. LICENSES-PAROL LICENSE-REVOCATION BY DEED.

Where the owners of adjoining buildings built a stairway jointly, the middle of the stairway being upon the line, and by parol agreement one owner used the basement under the stairway, and the other the rooms over it, a parol license was created which was revoked by a deed by one of the owners.

2. EASEMENTS-ADVERSE POSSESSION-PRESCRIPTION.

Defendant's exclusive use of a stairway and rooms over it for more than 20 years after a parol license had been revoked, held, to create a prescriptive right to their use so long as the present building stands.

3. SAME-EXCLUSIVE USE-PRESCRIPTION.

Because persons other than defendant used said stairway, does not prevent his user from being exclusive, since exclusive use means that his right does not depend on a like right in others.

Appeal from Bay; Davis, J., presiding. Submitted October 24, 1918. (Docket No. 6.) Decided December 27, 1918. Reargued February 7, 1919. Opinion reaffirmed May 29, 1919 (see 206 Mich. 177).

Bill by the First National Bank of Bay City against John C. Vanden Brooks and others to quiet title to land. Defendant Vanden Brooks filed a cross-bill claiming title by adverse possession and prescription. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant Vanden Brooks appeals. Reversed, and decree entered for appellant.

Edward S. Clark, for plaintiff.

Coumans & Gaffney, for appellant.

STONE, J. The bill of complaint herein was filed to remove a cloud upon plaintiff's title to lot twelve (12) and the westerly one (1) foot of lot eleven (11) See note in 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 89.

in block sixty-seven (67) plat of Lower Saginaw, now Bay City, according to the recorded plat thereof, and for an injunction. The parties are owners of adjoining property and buildings in the business section of said city. The present condition of the buildings is shown by the photograph, Exhibit "M," which appears in the record and is hereto attached. Prior to the year 1915 the condition of the property was as shown by Exhibit "A," which also appears in the record and is also hereto attached.

In Exhibit "A," the building which extends from W to X is known as the "old bank building.” The building which extends from X to a point half way between Y and Z is known as the "Warren" building, it having been built by one Byron E. Warren, although owned by the plaintiff during the period of this litigation. The building which extends east from the Warren building past Z and B to the alley, is known as the "Vanden Brooks building." Plaintiff's new bank building shown in Exhibit "M" occupies the space formerly occupied by the old bank building and the Warren building. An entrance doorway, within which is a stairway, is situate between the Warren and Vanden Brooks buildings in Exhibit “A.” The subject-matter of this litigation is that part of the structure occupied by this entrance and stairway (marked Y-Z on said exhibit, and hereafter referred to as "the stairway"). It is the claim of the plaintiff that this stands one-half on the land of each party.

In 1871, and for a number of years thereafter, the Vanden Brooks building was owned by the father of the defendant Vanden Brooks, and the Warren building was owned by Byron E. Warren. The plaintiff has succeeded to the rights of Warren, and defendant to the rights of the elder Vanden Brooks. The buildings were constructed at the same time, probably in 1871. The stairway in dispute, which is the main

stairway leading from Center avenue to the second floor of the two buildings, has, as is claimed by plaintiff, its center line upon the property line, so that it stands one-half upon the land of each of the parties. It was built jointly by Warren and the elder Vanden Brooks, each paying one-half of the cost. This stairway had always been used in common by the owners and occupants of both of the blocks, and an open hallway at the head of the stairway, leading to the various offices in both blocks had always existed.

In 1914, the plaintiff owned the old bank building and the Warren building, and the defendant Vanden Brooks owned the Vanden Brooks building. Both were brick structures. The plaintiff was planning the erection of its new bank building, and desired to construct its east wall on a straight line, following the property line, which it claimed ran through the middle of the stairway. This, it is evident, would necessitate either a reduction in the width of the stairway, or a change in its position. It was the claim of the plaintiff that, although the two halves of the stairway had always been separately owned, they had always been used in common by the tenants of all of the buildings, and the plaintiff attempted to make some satisfactory arrangement with defendant Vanden Brooks, before proceeding to demolish its half of the stairway. No agreement could be made. Said defendant objected, not only to the demolition of what plaintiff claimed was its half of the stairway, but also claimed that the Warren and Vanden Brooks buildings had been so constructed, with halls, corridors and skylights used in common, that defendant had acquired a perpetual easement which entitled him to insist upon the maintenance of the Warren building, or at least to the entire stairway, as it stood.

Owing to the failure of the parties to reach an agreement, plaintiff filed this bill, praying among