Detroit Trust Co. v. Austin

Citation289 N.W. 239,291 Mich. 523
Decision Date19 December 1939
Docket NumberNo. 118.,118.
PartiesDETROIT TRUST CO. et al. v. AUSTIN.
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suit by the Detroit Trust Company, a Michigan corporation, trustee under the will of DeWitt H Taylor, deceased, and others, against Charles E. Austin, to enjoin the violation of a provision of a lease, to enjoin the removal of a signboard, and to recover damages resulting from the erection of the signboard. From the decree, the defendant appeals, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; theodore J. Richter, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Joseph E. Arsulowicz, of Detroit, for defendant and appellant.

Bratton & Bratton, of Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellees.

BUTZEL, Chief Justice.

On May 15 ,1935, plaintiffs leased to defendant for a period of ten years property situated at the southwest corner of Woodward and Taylor Avenues, Detroit, to be used and occupied exclusively for a gasoline and oil filling station and purposes incidental thereto. It was provided in the lease that the filling station and appurtenances were to be erected by the lessee in accordance with the plans and specificationsprepared and approved by him and the lessor but paid for exclusively by the lessor. The specific kind, color and location of all items to be erected were shown on a general arrangement plan prepared by an architect, which was referred to in the agreement and attached thereto. The filling station was built and possession taken by defendant under the terms of the lease, included in which is the following provision: ‘The lessee shall not make any structural additions to or alterations of said premises and gas station without the prior written consent of the landlord.'

Following determination of the restriction case involving the same property (Taylor Avenue Improvement Association v. Detroit Trust Co., 283 Mich. 304, 278 N.W. 75), certain alterations in the premises became necessary, including removal of the station building further toward the southerly line of the property. The parties mutually consented to these changes in writing dated May 10, 1936; an architect's blueprint specifically detailing the alterations was again attached to the agreement.

On or about December 1, 1938, the defendant, without permission of the landlord, proceeded to erect a signboard on the leased premises along the southern boundary and at right angles to Woodward Avenue. The sign is about 24 feet long and 16 feet high. Square lattice work 4 feet high, extended along the bottom for the entire length of the sign, partially obscuring objects behind it. Above this there was placed a solid metal signboard, surrounded by a frame, over the top of which electric lights projected for purposes of illumination. The sign has been used exclusively to advertise defendant's products.

Less than two months later plaintiffs filed a bill of complaint to enjoin what they alleged is a violation of the above quoted provision of the lease, and sought a mandatory injunction ordering removal of the signboard. It was claimed that plaintiffs had leased adjoining property owned by them to an outdoor display company for purposes of billboard advertising. The view of the billboards on this property was so obstructed by the sign erected by defendant that the advertising company terminated its lease as it was entitled to do under its terms. As a result plaintiffs in their bill claim damages for the loss of such rentals as they would have received from the adjoining land for the period of the lease. After hearing the trial court ordered removal of defendant's sign but made no award of damages.

Is the sign a ‘structural addition’ to or ‘alteration of’ the premises and gas station within the meaning of the lease? The parties have not seen fit to furnish us with photographs or a description of rear of the sign to indicate how it is supported or attached to the premises. But it requires no student of physics to realize that such a billboard requires very substantial supports planted in the ground to keep it standing or able to resist the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Webb-Boone Paving Co. v. State Highway Com'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 7, 1943
    ......258; Miller v. Siden, 242 N.W. 823; Ladner v. Siegel, 144 A. 274; Wash. & Detroit Theatre Co. v. Moore, 68 A. L. R. 105; Brindley v. Meara, 198 N.E. 301; Zenie. Bros. v. ... Riley, 130 So. 283; Brown v. City of Decatur, . 188 Ill.App. 147; Detroit Trust Co. v. Austin, 289. N.W. 239; Flanigan v. T. W. Carlin Const. Co., 118. N.Y.S. 593; Armenti ......
  • Webb-Boone Paving Co. v. State Highway Comm.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 7, 1943
    ...Co. v. Perkins, 295 Pac. 552; Jefferson Davis County v. Riley, 130 So. 283; Brown v. City of Decatur, 188 Ill. App. 147; Detroit Trust Co. v. Austin, 289 N.W. 239; Flanigan v. T.W. Carlin Const. Co., 118 N.Y.S. 593; Armenti v. Brooklyn Gas Co., 142 N.Y.S. 420; Rookstool v. Cudahy Packing Co......
  • Austin v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 19, 1939
    ......, of Grand Rapids, for plaintiffs and appellants.Kirkbride, Boesel, Frease & Cole, of Toledo, Ohio, and Clark, Klein, Brucker & Waples, of Detroit, for defendants and appellees Hickok Oil Corp. and others.Lewis & Watkins, of Detroit, for defendant and appellee Pure Oil Co.        [289 ...Under the agreement of November 30, 1932, plaintiff Charles E. Austin, who alleges that he had trust and confidence in certain of the defendants, was hired by them for a term of five years to act in a managerial capacity. These facts do not, however, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT