Dingeman v. Boerth's Estate
| Decision Date | 06 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 114.,114. |
| Citation | 239 Mich. 234,214 N.W. 239 |
| Parties | DINGEMAN et al. v. BOERTH'S ESTATE et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Arthur Webster, Judge.
Suit by Harry J. Dingeman and others against the estate of Rose E. Boerth and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Bratton & Bratton, of Detroit, for appellant Dumbleton.
John P. Scallen, of Detroit, for appellees.
Defendant Dumbleton's appeal from a decree enjoining violation of a building restriction presents but one principal and meritorious question, whether what was done actually violates the restriction. The premises in question, 613 Virginia Park, Detroit, are a part of a restricted district, 92 lots, along Virginia Park between Woodward and Hamilton avenues. The applicable restriction is:
‘That the said premises shall be used for residence purposes only; that no building not of brick or stone shall be erected thereon; that no dwelling house shall be erected thereon at a cost of less than $5,000; that no double house shall be erected on said premises, nor more than one house on each lot of 50 feet frontage; and that no building or part of a building, such as bow window or swelled front, shall be erected on said premises within 25 feet of front of Virginia avenue line of said premises.’
The restriction has been preserved vigilantly by resident owners. There are now in the district 90 high class single residences and but two vacant lots. Defendant Dumbleton rented of the defendant estate the premises in question, a single residence, with knowledge of the restriction. The lease itself recites that the premises were to be occupied as a ‘residence place for the family of the lessee only.’ Defendant converted it into a rooming house and at the time of hearing had 9 roomers. Judge Webster, in an opinion, succinctly stated, disposes of the case. We adopt it:
‘The restriction in question must be read as a whole and construed in the light of the general plan or scheme of development under which the restricted district was built. It is to be noted that not only are the premises to be used ‘for residence purposes only,’ but that ‘no double house shall be erected on said premises nor more than one house on each lot of 50 feet front.’ At once it is apparent that this language precludes the erection of an apartment building, or apartment hotel, or any building of like character. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. St. Clair
...of children was a violation of a covenant restricting buildings to dwelling houses or duplex dwelling houses. In Dingeman v. Boerth's Estate, 239 Mich. 234, 214 N.W. 239, the court stated: 'Could a lot owner erect a large single residence on his lot and then turn it into a hotel or boarding......
-
Andrews v. Metropolitan Bldg. Co.
... ... expressed in them. 18 C. J., p. 388; Mathews Real Estate ... Co. v. National Ptg. Co., 330 Mo. 190, 48 S.W.2d 911; ... Gardiner v. Maffitt, 335 Mo ... Koehler, 148 S.W.2d 489; Robbins v ... Bangor Ry. El. Co., 100 Me. 496, 62 A. 136; Dingeman ... v. Boerth's Estate, 239 Mich. 234, 219 N.W. 239; ... Seeley v. Phi Sigma Delta Fraternity ... ...
-
Deitrick v. Leadbetter
...Trainor LeBeck, 101 N.J.Eq. 823, 139 A. 16; Seeley Phi Sigma Delta House Corporation, 245 Mich. 252, 222 N.W. 180; Dingeman Boerth's Estate, 239 Mich. 234, 214 N.W. 239; Sayles Hall, 210 Mass. 281, 96 N.E. 712, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 625, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 475), although a different conclusion was ......
-
Boston-Edison Protective Ass'n v. Paulist Fathers, Inc.
...negative easements does not permit such liberality as to allow the use of the dwelling as a rooming house (Dingeman v. Boerth's Estate, 239 Mich. 234, 214 N.W. 239), nor the use of a part of the dwelling as a store (Holderness v. Central States Finance Corporation, 241 Mich. 604, 217 N.W. 7......