SanBorn v. McLean
Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 67.,67. |
Citation | 233 Mich. 227,206 N.W. 496 |
Parties | SANBORN et al. v. McLEAN et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; George O. Driscoll, Judge.
Suit by Jessie L. Sanborn and others against John A. McLean and others to enjoin erection of gasoline filling station. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Clark, Emmons, Bryant & Klein, of Detroit, for appellants.
Warren, Cady, Hill & Hamblen, of Detroit, for appellees.
Defendant Christina McLean owns the west 35 feet of lot 86 of Green Lawn subdivision, at the northeast corner of Collingwood avenue and Second boulevard, in the city of Detroit, upon which there is a dwelling house, occupied by herself and her husband, defendant John A. McLean. The house fronts Collingwood avenue. At the rear of the lot is an alley. Mrs. McLean derived title from her husband, and, in the course of the opinion, we will speak of both as defendants. Mr. and Mrs. McLean started to erect a gasoline filling station at the rear end of their lot, and they and their contractor, William S. Weir, were enjoined by decree from doing so and bring the issues before us by appeal. Mr. Weir will not be further mentioned in the opinion.
Collingwood avenue is a high grade residence street between Woodward avenue and Hamilton boulevard, with single, double, and apartment houses, and plaintiffs, who are owners of land adjoining and in the vicinity of defendants' land, and who trace title, as do defendants, to the proprietors of the subdivision, claim that the proposed gasoline station will be a nuisance per se, is in violation of the general plan fixed for use of all lots on the street for residence purposes only, as evidenced by restrictions upon 53 of the 91 lots fronting on Collingwood avenue, and that defendants' lot is subject to a reciprocal negative easement barring a use so detrimental to the enjoyment and value of its neighbors. Defendants insist that no restrictions appear in their chain of title and they purchased without notice of any reciprocal negative easement, and deny that a gasoline station is a nuisance per se. We find no occasion to pass upon the question of nuisance, as the case can be decided under the rule of reciprocal negative easement.
This subdivision was planned strictly for residence purposes, except lots fronting Woodward avenue and Hamilton boulevard. The 91 lots on Collingwood avenue were platted in 1891, designed for and each one sold solely for residence purposes, and residences have been erected upon all of the lots. Is defendants' lot subject to a reciprocal negative easement? If the owner of two or more lots, so situated as to bear the relation, sells one with restrictions of benefit to the land retained, the servitude becomes mutual, and, during the period of restraint, the owner of the lot or lots retained can do nothing forbidden to the owner of the lot sold. For want of a better descriptive term this is styled a reciprocal negative easement. It runs with the land sold by virtue of express fastening and abides with the land retained until loosened by expiration of its period of service or by events working its destruction. It is not personal to owners, but operative upon use of the land by any owner having actual or constructive notice thereof. It is an easement passing its benefits and carrying its obligations to all purchasers of land, subject to its affirmative or negative mandates. It originates for mutual benefit and exists with vigor sufficient to work its ends. It must start with a common owner. Reciprocal negative easements are never retroactive; the very nature of their origin forbids. They arise, if at all, out of a benefit accorded land retained, by restrictions upon neighboring land sold by a common owner. Such a scheme of restriction must start with a common owner; it cannot arise and fasten upon one lot by reason of other lot owners conforming to a general plan. If a reciprocal negative easement attached to defendants' lot, it was fastened thereto while in the hands of the common owner of it and neighboring lots by way of sale of other lots with restrictions beneficial at that time to it. This leads to inquiry as to what lots, if any, were sold with restrictions by the common owner before the sale of defendants' lot. While the proofs cover another avenue, we need consider sales only on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodgers v. Reimann
...1935, 291 Mass. 477, 197 N.E. 224, 228-229; Hartt v. Rueter, 1916, 223 Mass. 207, 111 N.E. 1045, 1046-1047; Sanborn v. McLean, 1925, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N.W. 496, 497, 60 A.L.R. 1212; DeGray v. Monmouth Beach Club House Co., 1892, 50 N.J.Eq. 329, 340-342, 24 A. 388; Tallmadge v. East River B......
-
Turner v. Brocato
...14 App.Cas. 12; In re Birmingham and District Land Co., 1 Ch. 342; Tallmadge v. East River Bank, 26 N.Y. 105; Sanborn v. McLean, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N.W. 496, 60 A.L.R. 1212; Johnson v. Mt. Baker Park Presbyterian Church, 113 Wash. 458, 194 P. 536; Allen v. City of Detroit, 167 Mich. 464, 13......
-
Snow v. Van Dam
... ... 342, 351, 352 ... Jaeger v. Mansions Consolidated, Ltd., 87 L. T. (N ... S.) 690, 697; Gedge v. Bartlett, 17 T. L. R. 43; ... Sanborn v. McLean, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N.W. 496, 60 ... A.L.R. 1212; Johnson v. Mt. Baker Park Presbyterian ... Church, 113 Wash. 458, 194 P. 536. See, ... ...
-
Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, Phoenix
...one of the parcels. Grange v. Korff, 248 Iowa 118, 79 N.W.2d 743; Turner v. Brocato, 206 Md. 226, 111 A.2d 855; Sanborn v. McLean, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N.W. 496, 60 A.L.R. 1212. The principle here is that when an owner of land contracts with the purchasers of successive parcels in respect to ......
-
Table of Cases
...308 Mich. 341, 13 N.W.2d 843 (1944): 7.8(2)(c) Mumrow v. Riddle, 67 Mich. App. 693, 242 N.W.2d 489 (1976): 7.6(2)(b) Sanborn v. McLean, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N.W. 496 (1925): 8.2(3)(f)(ii) Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Dunitz, 273 Mich. 607, 263 N.W. 751 (1935): 20.14(8)(b) Union Guardian Trust ......
-
CERCLA: convey to a pauper and avoid cost recovery under section 107(a) (1)?
...(129) Guillette v. Daly Dry Wall, Inc., 325 N.E.2d 572, 574-75 (Mass. 1975); McQuade v. Wilcox, 183 N.W. 771, 773-74 (Mich. 1921). (130) 206 N.W. 496 (Mich. (131) Id. at 498. (132) See supra note 16 (discussing the due diligence requirement for the innocent purchaser defense). (133) Gallagh......
-
Touch and Concern Is Dead, Long Live the Doctrine
...(1958); see also KENNETH T. JACKSON, THE CRAB GRASS FRONTIER: THE SUBURBANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES (1985). 51. See Sanborn v. McLean, 206 N.W. 496 (Mich. 1925); Sharts v. Walters, 759 P.2d 201 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). 52. See Peterson v. Friedman, 328 P.2d 264 (Cal. 1958)(negative easement......
-
The Emergence of Exacted Conservation Easements
...may be implied by general plans developed for subdivisions. See, e.g., Turner v. Brocato, 111 A.2d 855 (Md. 1955); Sanborn v. McLean, 206 N.W. 496 (Mich. 1925); Buffalo Acad. of Sacred Heart v. Boehm Bros., Inc., 196 N.E. 42 (N.Y. 1935); Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1990); Mid-Sta......