Village of St. Johns v. McFarlan
| Decision Date | 02 November 1875 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Village of St. Johns v. John N. McFarlan |
Heard October 26, 1875
Appeal in Chancery from Clinton Circuit.
Decree of the court affirmed, with costs.
R Strickland, for complainant.
Spaulding & Cranson, for defendant.
The complainant filed its bill to restrain defendant from erecting a wooden building within certain established fire limits contrary to the provisions of an ordinance, a copy of which as set forth in the bill was as follows: The answer admitted that a resolution which the board of trustees termed an ordinance had been adopted, and there was no proof introduced on the subject, the case being permitted to stand in this respect upon the statement in the bill as admitted in the answer.
A court in chancery has no jurisdiction to restrain the threatened violation of a village ordinance, unless the act threatened to be done, if carried out, would be a nuisance. If it were otherwise, the court might be called upon in all classes of cases to restrain the doing of acts prohibited by statute.--Mayor, etc., v. Thorne, 7 Paige 271; Att'y Gen'l v. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch., 370.
The erection of a wooden building within the limits of a city or village is not in and of itself a nuisance. Neither does the fact that the erection of such is prohibited by ordinance make it a nuisance. If this were so, then the doing of any act prohibited by law would, upon the same reasoning, be a nuisance. The act, if prohibited, would be illegal; but something more than mere illegality is required to give this court jurisdiction. It was, however, insisted that the erection of a wooden building in a thickly settled portion of a village increases the danger in case of fire, and thereby injures adjoining property. There are, however, many kinds of trades and occupations, some of them prohibited by law which, when carried on, equally tend to injure adjoining property, yet no one would contend that a court of chancery should interfere by injunction. It was also claimed that if the relief prayed for was refused there was no other adequate remedy, and that therefore the court ought to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co.
...because the owner had flouted a local ordinance requiring that such businesses be licensed. 45 Similarly, Village of St. Johns v. McFarlan, 33 Mich. 72, 20 Am.Rep. 671 (1875), on which this Court largely relied in Garfield, and which the majority quotes in support of the broad proposition t......
-
Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City
...... St. Louis v. Packing Co., 141 Mo. 383; St. Louis v. Butler, . 178 Mo. 311; Village of St. John v. McFarlan, 33. Mich. 72; Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4 Ed.), p. 155;. ......
-
Attorney General ex rel. Michigan Bd. of Optometry v. Peterson
....... Chief Justice Dethmers stated in Village of Port Austin v. Parsons (1957), 349 Mich. 629, p. 630, 85 N.W.2d 120, p. 121: . 'It will be ...Johns v. McFarlan (1875), 33 Mich. 72, the village sought to restrain the defendant from erecting a ......
-
Michigan License Beverage Ass'n v. Behnan Hall, Inc.
......Malloska, 238 Mich. 216, 220, 213 N.W. 107, 108 (1927); Village of St. Johns v. McFarlan, 33 Mich. 72, 20 Am.Rep. 671 (1875). No allegations of nuisance were made ......