Manheim v. Urbani
| Citation | 28 N.W.2d 907,318 Mich. 552 |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 57.,57. |
| Parties | MANHEIM et al. (REITMAN et al., Interveners) v. URBANI et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Guy A. Miller, judge.
Suit in equity by Jerome Manheim and others against Anthony Urbani and wife to restrain violation of a building and use restriction on defendants' premises, in which Aaron Reitman and others intervened as parties plaintiff. From a decree restraining defendants from selling or distributing liquor on the premises, they appeal.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Lawhead, Kenney & Radom, of Detroit, for plaintiffs, intervening plaintiffs and appellees.
Charles Rubiner, of Detroit, for defendants and appellants.
Plaintiffs filed a bill against defendants Anthony Urbani and Cesidia Urbani, his wife, to restrain the violation of a building and use restriction in a subdivision located on the southwest corner of Thatcher street and Livernois avenue in the city of Detroit.
The property owned by defendants is subject to the following restriction:
‘The said premises shall at no time be used for manufacturing purposes, nor for the conduct of any offensive or dangerous business, nor for the sale or distribution of spirituous or malt liquors, or the conduct of the liquor business at wholesale or retail * * *.'
Defendants acquired part of the property in 1936 and the rest in 1941. In 1940, Mr. Urbani established a bowling alley on the premises under the name ‘Varsity Recreation.’ In July 1944, he applied for transfer of a liquor license, but it was denied. Prior to the rejection of defendant's application for a liquor license and on August 2, 1944, a number of the residents of the community in which the property is located signed a petition addressed to the police department of the city of Detroit, the common council of Detroit, and the liquor control commission objecting to the granting of a license to sell lequor on the premises owned by defendant. On November 25, 1944, a memorandum was sent from the police department to the Michigan liquor control commission advising it that the police department could not approve defendant's application for the transference of a liquor license because the majority of the residents had opposed the issuance of the same.
In April 1945, defendant circulated a petition among the residents of that area for the purpose of obtaining their consent to the granting of a liquor license to him. Defendant again made application for a liquor license. On August 29, 1945, at 6:42 p. m., he was notified by the Michigan liquor control commission that his application for a license had been granted. Before defendant's place of business was closed for that evening, he had already completed sales of liquor.
On October 26, 1945, plaintiffs filed their bill of complaint seeking to restrain defendants from selling liquor at the place heretofore mentioned.
The cause came on for trial and the trial court entered a decree restraining defendants from selling or distributing liquor on the premises involved. Defendants appeal and urge that plaintiffs were guilty of such laches in the enforcement of the building restrictions as to render enforcement thereof inequitable. In support of his claim defendant urges that he made an initial investment or more than $13,000 and, encouraged by the silence of his neighbors, contracted for fixtures, paying almost $2,500 down and obligating himself to the extent of $7,000 more; and that he contracted for the remodeling of the premises at a cost of $2,500.
Defendants rely on McKee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rybinski v. Rybinski, 21
...party asserting laches which would make it inequitable to disregard the lapse of time and incidental consequences.' Manheim v. Urbani, 318 Mich. 552, 555, 28 N.W.2d 907, 908. Plaintiff is guilty of unreasonable delay in prosecuting her claim. But, on the other hand, there is little if any s......
-
Schaefer v. City of East Detroit
...avail to defendant here. Wright v. Brown, 317 Mich. 561, 27 N.W.2d 97; Kelley v. Hoogerhyde, 314 Mich. 37, 22 N.W.2d 63; Manheim v. Urbani, 318 Mich. 552, 28 N.W.2d 907; Rybinski v. Rybinski, 333 Mich. 592, 53 N.W.2d The fact that some of plaintiffs purchased their lots after the ordinance ......
-
Dunn v. Minnema, 35.
...231 Mich. 592, 204 N.W. 767;Angeloff v. Smith, 254 Mich. 99, 235 N.W. 823;Carey v. Lauhoff, 301 Mich. 168, 3 N.W.2d 67;Manheim v. Urbani, 318 Mich. 552, 28 N.W.2d 907. The provisions of the uniform fraudulent conveyance act as construed by this court in prior decisions, including those abov......
-
Cantor v. Cantor, Docket No. 78-21
...without a showing of prejudice will not give rise to the defense of laches. As the Supreme Court stated in Manheim v. Urbani,318 Mich. 552, 555, 28 N.W.2d 907, 908 (1947): "(I)t must [87 MICHAPP 494] appear the delay resulted in some prejudice to the party asserting laches which would make ......