In re Spears, 69.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 69.,69. |
| Citation | 227 Mich. 525,198 N.W. 952 |
| Parties | In re SPEARS et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari from Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.
Petition by Charles A. Spears and Le Roy M. Spears, as the Spears Lumber Company, for vacation of an alley. From an order of vacation, the city brings certiorari. Order set aside.
Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Ganson Taggart, of Grand Rapids (Charles Watt, of Grand Rapids, of counsel), for City of Grand Rapids.
J. T. & T. F. McAllister, of Grand Rapids, for appellees.
The Spears Lumber Company petitioned the circuit court for the county of Kent to enter an order vacating an alley, extending from Madison avenue east to College avenue, and passing through the center of blocks 9 and 10 of Weston & Meigs' addition to the city of Grand Rapids, pursuant to the provisions of sections 3354 and 3355, 1 Comp. Laws 1915.
Objections were filed by the mayor on behalf of the city. It insists that the maintenance of the alley is necessary for the public convenience and travel and for the public use. A hearing was had and proofs taken. The city reviews by certiorari the order entered vacating the alley.
The facts are not in dispute. The alley is 578.9 feet in length and 20 feet in width. It appears that the Spears Company owns the abutting land on both sides for its entire length, and that the principal use made of it is by them in the operation of their lumber business. It is occasionally used by persons and vehicles desiring to pass from Madison avenue to College avenue. It was used by the city fire department during the summer of 1922, when extinguishing a fire on petitioners' property. The Consumers' Power Company has poles erected in the alley on which their wires are placed.
The city manager testified that the alleys of the city generally are now being used for the installation of the poles and wires of public utilities and for sewers and gas mains. He further testified:
‘It is very desirable to have access and be close to these fire hazards, which a lumber yard is known to be in the neighborhood, and the engine should be able to get in and sit as close to this as possible.’
The chief of the fire department testified that it was desirable to keep the alley open by reason of the fire hazard and the large space which would be inclosed by petitioners if it be vacated.
[1] We must take judicial notice of the growth and development of manufacturing cities such as Grand Rapids. The desire of the people of such a city to have the sewers, gas mains, telephone, telegraph, and electric light poles or conduits, placed in alleys, as testified to by the city manager, is general, and founded on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hendricks
...to proceedings where there is another remedy. Case v. Frey, 24 Mich. 251. Petitions filed under it were before this court in Re Spears, 227 Mich. 525, 198 N. W. 952, and in Re Petition of Hawkins, 244 Mich. 681, 222 N. W. 108. In Curtis v. Charlevoix Golf Ass'n, 178 Mich. 50, 144 N. W. 818,......
-
Petition of Cara Ave., Sandy Beach, Cass County
...The record contains no evidence to the contrary. There seems to us 'reasonable objection' within the meaning of the act. In re Spears, 227 Mich. 525, 198 N.W. 952. There is no doubt that as public demand for access to lakes increases, the travel of the public on such public ways as Cara ave......
-
In re Hendricks
...or fraud, the courts may not review the action of the council determining the necessity of vacating streets.’ See, also, In re Spears, 227 Mich. 525, 198 N. W. 952;Phelps v. Stott Realty Co., 233 Mich. 486, 207 N. W. 2. The court, since the Constitution of 1908, has no plenary power to vaca......
-
Bd. of Educ. of Fordson Sch. Dist. of City of Dearborn v. City of Dearborn
...was an abuse of the discretion vested in that body by the law. Tomazewski v. Palmer Bee Co., 223 Mich. 565, 194 N. W. 571;In re Spears, 227 Mich. 525, 198 N. W. 952;In re Petition of Hendricks to Vacate Street, 251 Mich. 336, 232 N. W. 350. In the first of these cases it was said: ‘In the a......