Kuzniak v. Kozminski

• Decision Date: 17 December 1895
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: KUZNIAK v. KOZMINSKI ET UX.

65 N.W. 275

107 Mich. 444

KUZNIAK v. KOZMINSKI ET UX.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 17, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Kent county; in chancery; Allen C. Adsit Judge.

Action by John Kuzniak against Jakob Kozminski and wife. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Thompson & Temple, for appellants.

James E. McBride, for appellee.

LONG J.

The parties to this cause own adjoining lots in the city of Grand Rapids. Defendant's lot is on the southeastern corner of Eleventh and Muskegon streets, and upon which is a large tenement house facing both streets. The complainant owns the lot immediately south and adjoining the defendant's, and upon which he has a dwelling house facing Muskegon street and also a tenement house about 60 feet back from Muskegon street, and within 22 inches of the north line, being the line of defendants' lot. At the time this tenement house was erected, defendants had upon their lot what was called a "chicken shed"; and, after complainant's tenement house was erected, defendants moved this chicken shed upon a part of their lot directly opposite complainant's tenement house, and within 24 inches of the lot line, and converted it into a coal and wood house for the use of their tenants, who occupied the dwelling on said lot. This bill was filed by complainant for the purpose of having this coal and wood house of defendants declared a nuisance, and to compel them to remove the same. The claim made by the bill is that the defendants removed the building to that place through spite and from a malicious motive, and not because it was needed for any useful purpose. Defendants answered the bill, denying that they were actuated by malice in putting the building there, and averred that it was so placed for the use of their tenants for wood and coal. The testimony was taken in open court, and the court found that the building was a nuisance, and a decree was entered directing the defendants to remove the building within 60 days from the date of the decree, and that, in default of such removal, the sheriff of the county remove the same, at the cost and expense of defendants. The complainant was awarded the costs of the suit. Defendants appeal.

It was held in Flaherty v. Moran, 81 Mich. 52, 45 N.W. 381 that a fence erected maliciously, and with no other purpose than to shut out the light and air from a neighbor's window, was a nuisance, and the decree of the...