
    WEBBERT v. TOWNSHIP OF PARK.
    1. Appeal and Error — Findings of Court — Review.
    Supreme Court need not consider findings and conclusions of trial judge given as reasons for decree, where they are challenged by no one having interest in subject-matter.
    2. Quieting Title — -Right to Attack Court’s Findings — Appeal and Error.
    Township, defendant in suit to quiet title to strip of land in which it was affirmatively shown to have no easement or interest, could not attack trial judge’s findings and conclusions supporting decree for plaintiff.
    Appeal from Ottawa; Vanderwerp (John), J., presiding.
    Submitted October 19, 1932.
    (Docket No. 140, Calendar No. 36,816.)
    Decided January 3, 1933.
    Rehearing denied March 2, 1933.
    Bill by Rex J. Webbert against Township of Park, a municipal corporation, and others to quiet title. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant township appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Raymond L. Smith and Nelson A. Miles, for plaintiff.
    
      Elbern Parsons, for defendant township.
   Clark, J.

Plaintiff filed bill to quiet title to a small strip of inclosed land. Among others, he made township of Park a defendant on the allegation that it had asserted some interest in the land. No defense was made, except by the township. Plaintiff had decree. The defendant township has appealed.

We need not consider the findings and conclusions of the trial judge given as his reasons for decree. They are challenged by no one having interest in the subject-matter. The township asserted an easement of highway, but established none.

The record shows affirmatively that the township has no interest or right in the land, no highway by user, gift, purchase, establishment, or condemnation, nor any other interest.

Affirmed, with costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.  