surveyor, and received a patent, but neither the survey nor the patent referred to the line established in plaintiff's survey, but merely called for plaintiff's land as adjoining on the west. M.'s land was, after mesne conveyances, deeded to defendant by. deed describing the land as the same previously conveyed to M. There was no evidence that M. agreed to the line as established by plaintiff's survey, nor that M.'s survey and patent adopted it. Held, that defendant was in privity with M., and has title to the tract according to the line as established before plaintiff's survey.- Waters vs. Starr (Pa.) 21 A. 865.

92. Defendant and plaintiff's predecessor in title took a conveyance of the north half of certain lots, the south half of which had been conveyed to one R. There was a fence supposed to be R.'s north boundary. On partition the south 581 feet of the land was measured north from the fence and conveyed to plaintiff's predecessor, a notch being cut to show the division line. It was afterwards found that R.'s true boundary was 3.3 feet north of the fence, and plaintiff sued to recover a strip of that width north of the division line as fixed by the notch. The deed of partition and subsequent deeds, of plaintiff's lot called for R.'s land, and not the fence, as its southern boundary, and described the lot as 581 feet wide. Held, that testimony was not admissible to affect or vary the boundaries as fixed by the deed, and that the location of the division line in partition was not binding, if by mutual mistake the parties took R.'s fence as the true north boundary of his lands.-Davis vs. Russell (Pa.) 21 A. 870.

93. Where the original survey and field-notes of a township show all the sections full, but, after all the natural monuments in the two northern tiers of sections have been lost, it appears that there is a shortage somewhere within those two tiers, such shortage will be apportioned between the two tiers, and not imposed wholly on the northern tier, though the survey was made by beginning at the southeast corner of the township, and working north.James vs. Drew (Miss.) 9 So. 293.

94. On a question of boundary between adjoining lands, evidence is admissible that a former owner of part of the land on one side of the disputed line, since deceased, while upon the land, negotiating a sale of it, pointed out the location of the line and the landmarks upon it; it not appearing that he

had any interest to locate the line differently from its true position.-Royal vs. Chandler (Me.) 21 A. 842.

95. Upon conflicting evidence as to whether acts and declarations of a former owner of land, offered as proof of the boundary thereof, were made before or after he conveyed the land, the question is to be determined by the judge, in his discretion.- Royal vs. Chandler (Me.) 21 A. 842.

96. In 1844 a land owner granted lands, bounding them on the south by the center of the "state road," and on the east by a north and south line far enough east to include 40 acres. Subsequently he granted other lands on the east of this tract. On a question as to the location of the common boundary, it appeared that in 1844 there existed a recorded plat of a state road, but the road existing at the time of the trial did not correspond therewith. On the evidence it was doubtful whether any state road had been opened in 1844. Held, that the plat was properly admitted, since, if no road was open, the description must refer to it.-Atwood vs. Canrike (Mich.) 48 N. W. 950.

97. In an action involving the location of the dividing line between the lands of plaintiff and one M. it appeared that a continuous straight line formed the north boundary of both tracts and the south boundary of the land of one E. E. testified that he had divided the division fence with plaintiff and M., and that for 50 years he had begun at a white oak, which plaintiff claimed as his northeast corner, and built the east half of the fence between the land of himself and plaintiff, and the west half of the fence between the land of himself and M. On cross-examination it appeared E. built half of the fence between his land and that of plaintiff and M., and that the part so built by him was on both sides of the oak, but that neither party had ever spoken of the oak as the point of division. Held, that the testimony of E. should have been stricken out on defendants' motion.-Ostrander vs. Washburn, 14 N. Y. S. 584.

98. On a question whether defendants had maintained adverse possession for 15 years up to a certain fence, it was error to admit evidence that it was commonly understood in the neighborhood that the fence was not on the true line.— Atwood vs. Canrike (Mich.) 48 N. W. 950.

HON. GEO. E. STEELE.

BY FRANK HAMILTON, OF TRAVERSE CITY.

Geo. E. Steele, of Traverse City, Michigan, was born October 23, 1842, in Andover, Ashtabula county, Ohio. His ancestors on his father's side he follows back nine generations to the year 1631, where in Hartford, Connecticut, further traces are lost. On his mother's side the family history shows a clear genealogical line to an equally early date. The farm whereon he was born, was one selected by his grandfather in 1806 from the wilderness of the Western Reserve. Here, in 1809, Geo. E. Steele's father was born; and in 1845, when he was three years old, his father moved to Kingsville, Ohio, and lived there sixteen years. George's first day in school was spent in what had been a blacksmith's shop in that village, but soon the town and school outgrew the old shop and there for a long time a noted and most successful high school sustained the center of educational influence for the surrounding country, and there he found most of his schooling; interspersing the exercises and vacations with labors of a different kind, using the saw, plane and hammer, as well as the ax, hoe and rake. His familiarity with these articles when younger has never lessened his interest in them, nor in the class of men who have cleared the forests and made honest toil productive.

In the spring of 1861, his father moved from Ohio to Benzonia, Michigan, where the pioneer life was again entered upon with new zeal. The clearing of forests in northern Michigan was no small task and this departure of his father's furnished no opportunities for further home school education; it furnished to George E., however, unbounded facilities for the development of pluck, muscle, energy and the like, and no small share of these qualities are still retained by him. Along with these grew sterling character, mostly ambition and a desire to know more and to be more than the forest life afforded. The building of the log house, the church, the schoolhouse, and the laying out of roads served a good end later on in life.

In 1864 he entered the State Agricultural College, at Lan

sing, he being the first student to enter from north of Grand Rapids; walking thirty-two miles to Manistee, having his trunk tied onto the mail cart; he took a schooner to Milwaukee, a steamer back to Grand Haven, four days in making the trip, which was considered good time. On his return to the north he married Miss Lois S. Judson, daughter of S. F. Judson, of Medina county, Ohio, and then again commenced in the woods to make a farm. But his recent studies in Lansing had fitted him for other work and the frequent calls to make surveys of lands, to locate government and state lands, and make timber estimates, deprived the farm of a farmer and he soon removed to Elk Rapids, Antrim county, where he gave his entire time to matters pertaining to real estate. In 1882 Traverse City became his next and last place of residence, here forming a partnership with the late C. O. Titus, in real estate, insurance and abstract business. The firm was dissolved three years later by the death of Mr. Titus. Since that time he has been called upon to serve in many capacities for which he is fitted and which no one but Geo. E. Steele could fill. No man in this country has a better knowledge of the products and the location of good "sections" than he, no one is more sought for to correct the lines of county, town or village than he; the best railroad route he knows and the information given by him on these lines has helped many a poor fellow "out of the woods." While he has never sought public honors he has been chosen to fill many offices, all of which he has proved himself eminently fitted to fill. In 1876, while residing in Elk Rapids, he was selected representative by the republican party of Antrim and Charlevoix counties, serving his full term of two years meritoriously. Soon after his coming to Traverse City he was elected a member of the school board and served as moderator from 1885 to 1888. He has also been village trustee, and in both capacities proved a most active and useful officer. He was two years president of the Traverse City Business Men's Association, and has all along been county and village surveyor. His connection with the civil engineers of Michigan dates from the beginning of their organization; he was one of the charter members of the Michigan Association of Surveyors and Civil Engineers, and vice president from their organization

to 1885. He was elected vice president of the Michigan Engineering Society in 1886, acting president in 1887, and elected to that office for the years 1888 and 1889.

In manner Mr. Steele is genial and witty, possessing marked individuality, a capital host, a sought-for guest, an encyclopedia of general informantion, a ready public speaker, and fluent writer. Conservative in all his ways of dealing, he is remarkable for his accuracy and precision. His associations with men inspire confidence in his ability and integrity. Always a member of the Presbyterian or Congregational associations and identified with many charitable and educational organizations, he is most essentially a self made man, endeavoring always to serve noble and unselfish ends. His name is at the head of the list among the active and public men of northern Michigan.