Hawkins v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 28 January 1881 |
| Citation | 45 Mich. 491,8 N.W. 98 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAWKINS v. SANDERS. |
A wooden awning, of a character habitually in use in other parts of the same place and elsewhere, and recognized by the city ordinances as not objectionable, was erected by defendant in front of his premises. Held, that its maintenance would not be restrained at suit of a private individual.
Appeal from Washtenaw.
Albert Crane, for defendant.
Hawkins, who owns a hotel building in Ypsilanti filed his bill to restrain defendant, who owns a neighboring store building, from maintaining a wooden awning in front of his premises. The complainant's theory seems to be that this is a public nuisance, which injuriously affects him specially. The awning is so far as we can see no more of a nuisance than it would have been if made of any other material, and it was not as shown from the evidence such a structure as any court would regard as a public injury or grievance. It was such as was used habitually in other parts of Ypsilanti as well as elsewhere, and was recognized by the city ordinances as not objectionable. It was therefore no more than a lawful use of defendant's own property. The special grievance complained of is simply that it obstructs the view of the sidewalk and a portion of the street. The testimony does not indicate that there was any very well-founded objection in fact to the awning, and there is no legal objection to it.
The bill was properly dismissed.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hasselbring v. Koepke
...v. Crane, 85 Mich. 316, 48 N. W. 582, 583,12 L. R. A. 601. No right of prospect is recognized by the law of this state. Hawkins v. Sanders, 45 Mich. 491, 8 N. W. 98;Kuzniak v. Kozminski, 107 Mich. 444, 65 N. W. 275,61 Am. St. Rep. 344. This state does not recognize the common-law rule that ......
-
World Realty Company v. City of Omaha
... ... 50, holds to ... the rule that a private individual must show special damages ... before he can maintain an action to enjoin. In Hawkins v ... Sanders, [113 Neb. 407] 45 Mich. 491, 8 N.W. 98, because ... no damage was shown, the bill was dismissed ... ... State ... ...
-
City Council Of Augusta v. Burum
...se; but, for the purposes of the present case, it makes no difference whether an awning is a nuisance per se or not. In Hawkins v. Sanders, 45 Mich. 491, 8 N. W. 98, it was held that a wooden awning over a sidewalk, in front of a store, was not. There can, however, be no doubt that an awnin......
-
Burke v. Smith
... ... doctrine of ancient lights did not apply here. It was held by ... this court in Hawkins v. Sanders, ... 45 Mich. 491, 8 N.W. 98, that there was no right of prospect ... which would prevent the erection of an awning on a ... ...