City of Coldwater v. Williams Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 67.,67. |
| Citation | 288 Mich. 140,284 N.W. 675 |
| Parties | CITY OF COLDWATER v. WILLIAMS OIL CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Suit by the City of Coldwater against the Williams Oil Company, to enjoin defendant from erecting and maintaining a gasoline and oil filling station without first applying for and obtaining a permit. From a decree granting the injunction, the defendant appeals.
Decree reversed and bill dismissed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Branch County, in Chancery; Theo T. jacobs, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except CHANDLER, J.
Weage & Andrews, of Coldwater, for appellant.
W. Glenn Cowell, of Coldwater, for appellee.
Defendant company wanted to establish a gasoline filing station on certain premises in the city of Coldwater and, to that end, purchased the premises under land contract, paid $100 on the contract price of $3,500 and agreed to pay the balance if not prevented from its purpose by the city and, if so prevented, then the land contract purchase could be abandoned and the vendor retain the $100. Defendant, without permit from the city, excavated for placement of storage tanks and then was enjoined from further work under an injunction, issued in a suit by the city in which it was claimed that such a station at that point violated an ordinance.
Alleging invalidity of the ordinance defendant moved to dissolve the injunction. The court held the ordinance invalid but did not dismiss the suit because it involved preservation of some trees on the street and prevented cutting the curb of the pavement. Thereupon a new and valid ordinance was enacted and restraint thereunder sought by the city. The court enjoined defendant from erecting and maintaining a gasoline and oil filling station on the premises without first applying for and obtaining a permit.
Defendant reviews by appeal and in its behalf it is contended that its acts toward erection of the station, not being in violation of a valid ordinance, were under vested property rights and, therefore, could not be interfered with by the subsequent ordinance.
Counsel for defendant claim that the void ordinance carried no restraint and, therefore, when defendant purchased the premises there was no restriction on use thereof and when it started and made legitimate use and expended money thereon its right to continue was a vested one and beyond subsequent restraint by the later ordinance.
The president of defendant corporation testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
San Diego County v. McClurken
...he may complete the building and use it for the purpose designed after the effective date of the ordinance. City of Coldwater v. Williams Oil Co., 288 Mich. 140, 284 N.W. 675; Best & Co. v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 247 App.Div. 893, 286 N.Y.S. 980, affirmed 273 N.Y. 564, 7 N.E.2......
-
Johannes v. Rooks
... ... girl nine years and eight months of age, in the fourth grade at school, had been raised in the city and was familiar with street conditions. She had been apprized of the danger of crossing in front ... ...
-
Dingeman Advertising, Inc. v. Algoma Tp., Kent County
...the case within the exception noted in City of Lansing v. Dawley, 247 Mich. 394, 225 N.W. 500.' Also see City of Coldwater v. Williams Oil Co., 288 Mich. 140, 284 N.W. 675 (1939) and Expert Steel Co. v. City of Clawson, 368 Mich. 619, 118 N.W.2d 815 (1962). 1 Justice Black further said in F......
-
Keating Intern. Corp. v. Orion County
...interest acquired before a zoning ordinance is enacted may not be destroyed by passage of that ordinance. Coldwater v. Williams Oil Co., 288 Mich. 140, 143, 284 N.W. 675, 676 (1939). However, plaintiffs make no showing that they had commenced, much less completed, sufficient work on the lan......