
    GROH v. GROH.
    Deeds — Reformation—Reservation.
    A decree reforming certain conveyances by inserting therein a reservation of a right of way over the premises conveyed was affirmed, under the evidence.
    Appeal from Wayne; Donovan, J.
    Submitted April 24, 1902.
    (Docket No. 47.)
    Decided June 17, 1902.
    Bill by Emeline, Elizabeth, Amber, Rebecca, and Mary Alice Groh against Albert and Lillian H. Groh and Emma Swan to enforce an easement in the nature of a right of way over defendants’ lands. From a decree for complainants, defendants Groh appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      James H. Pound, for complainants.
    
      Ari E. Woodruff and Julius J. Thiede, for appellants.
   Hooker, C. J.

We agree with the learned circuit judge that this cause is an unseemly controversy, not creditable to defendants Albert and Lillian Groh, and we think the testimony warrants the finding of deliberate overreaching by Albert, whereby the legal right of the complainants to an easement through Frenchman’s Creek lane was not set forth in the conveyances made to give effect to their agreement. We are satisfied that it was the understanding that this right should not be disturbed by the partition, and that the deed from Amber to Albert Groh should have been made subject to it, which was the clear agreement of the parties.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.

Moore, Grant, and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.  