Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.190 (2026)

Width of highway; encroachment does not give right to land.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

HIGHWAY OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS; USE OF HIGHWAY BY PUBLIC UTILITIES

Act 368 of 1925

247.190 Width of highway; encroachment does not give right to land.

Sec. 20.

All public highways for which the right of way has at any time been dedicated, given or purchased, shall be and remain a highway of the width so dedicated, given or purchased, and no encroachments by fences, buildings or otherwise which may have been made since the purchase, dedication or gift nor any encroachments which were within the limits of such right of way at the time of such purchase, dedication or gift, and no encroachments which may hereafter be made, shall give the party or parties, firm or corporation so encroaching, any title or right to the land so encroached upon.

History: 1925, Act 368, Eff. Aug. 27, 1925 ;-- CL 1929, 4060 ;-- CL 1948, 247.190

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Haynes v. Vill. of Beulah, 865 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Haynes v. Vill. of Beulah, 865 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “In 2012, the village of Beulah introduced plans that would create angled parking, a new sidewalk, and a streetscape in the platted right-of-way of each street and would occupy portions of the land now claimed by plaintiffs. As a result, plaintiffs brought this action.”

City of Kentwood v. Sommerdyke Est., 581 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. 1998). “See Crosby v Greenville, 183 Mich 452, 459 ; 150 NW 246 (1914); MCL 247.190; MSA 9.270. Consequently, it must be that the Court’s ruling was based on its conclusion that a highway by user is only as wide as actually used.”

Eyde Bros. Dev. Co. v. Roscommon Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 411 N.W.2d 814 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “3 That common-law rule has been codified at MCL 247.190; MSA 9.270. 4 At various times in the course of this litigation, plaintiffs have asserted that Liberty Street has been abandoned by defendants.”

Sharkey v. City of Petoskey, 186 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “However, MCLA § 247.190 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev §9.270), provides: “All public highways for which the right-of-way has at anytime been dedicated, given or purchased, shall be and remain a highway of the width so dedicated, given or purchased, and no encroachments by fences, buildings…”

Miller v. Dep't of State Highways, 186 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “A further review of the matter discloses MCLA § 247.190 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.270), which provides: “Sec.”

Michael Wolf v. Kalkaska Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “7 7 To the extent defendant argues that MCL 247.190 bars plaintiffs from referencing the fact that there were encroachments on the disputed public right-of-way, that statute does not in any way suggest that plaintiffs cannot rely on encroachments to establish that defendant…”

Lanny L Scoby Trust v. Brian H Mitchell (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The panel addressed that argument in Wolf, unpub op at 8 n 7, when it observed that, although MCL 247.190 states that encroachments on a property do not confer title to that property, evidence of encroachments may nonetheless constitute evidence in support of a claim of…”

Houthoofd v. Tuscola Cnty. Road Comm'n (E.D. Mich. 2020). “Plaintiffs contend that Defendants “knew when ordering Plaintiffs Mallais not to put a fence, posts, and/or rocks on their property, and to remove the rocks that were already on the property abutting the Drive, that they were violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.