Pink v. Elder
| Decision Date | 06 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 54.,54. |
| Citation | 299 Mich. 320,300 N.W. 104 |
| Parties | PINK et ux. v. ELDER et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Reversed and decree entered for the plaintiffs.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; DeWitt H. Merriam, Judge.
Suit to enjoin the construction of a building in violation of a restrictive covenant by Samuel Pink and wife against William F. Elder and others. From a decree for the defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Louis A. Komjathy, of Detroit, for appellants.
Bertran J. Couture, of Detroit, for appellees William F. Elder and Idella B. Elder.
Defendant McClintock purchased from defendants Elder two lots in a subdivision, restricted to use for dwelling or residence purposes only, upon which there was a dwelling house, and engaged defendant William Elder to erect thereon a doctor's office, apart from the dwelling house but connected therewith by a hallway. The office building is approximately 25 feet square, one story in height and will cost $3,000. Plaintiffs are owners of a residence in the same subdivision but on another street and some distance away. They filed the bill herein to enjoin erection of the office building. Upon hearing, the court found changed conditions in that neighborhood and previous violations of the restrictions by others warranted relaxation of the restriction to the extent of permitting the office building, and dismissed the bill.
Plaintiffs review by appeal.
Defendant United Savings Bank of Detroit, holder of a mortgage on the premises, is no longer a party.
The mentioned restriction is in a plat of several blocks, recorded in 1914.
In support of the claim of changed conditions and that certain types of business are carried on within the same subdivision, there is evidence that a radio service shop, a place for the distribution of handbills and newspapers, a place for the sale of flower pots, an art studio, a place for knitting instructions, a sheet metal worker's establishment, a nursery, a beauty parlor, and a printing office exist in the subdivision.
Plaintiff rent the first floor of their residence to a plumber, who has a small sign in front of the house, but does not carry on his business at that location, although on some occasions he has had plumbers' supplies on the premises for short periods of time. In another residence a woman chiropractor lives and carries on her profession.
In French v. White Star Refining Co., 229 Mich. 474, 201 N.W. 444, the claim was made that building restrictions had been waived because electric signs had been erected on certain of the vacant lots and a doctor's sign had been hung from his residence. We held that such infractions were not of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spence v. Kuznia
...beneficial restriction. We find no waiver.’ See, also, the recent decisions, Rairigh v. Carnell, 277 Mich. 62, 268 N.W. 811;Pink v. Elder, 299 Mich. 320, 300 N.W. 104;Wilber v. Wisper & Wetsman Theatres, 301 Mich. 117, 3 N.W.2d 33;Carey v. Lauhoff, 301 Mich. 168, 3 N.W.2d 67. The circuit ju......
-
Sheridan v. Kurz
...their theretofore failure to stop a slight deviation from the strict letter of such restriction.’ This rule was followed in Pink v. Elder, 299 Mich. 320, 300 N.W. 104, the headnote of which reads: ‘While lot owners in restricted subdivision, by failing to object to physician's practicing me......