SanDers v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 16 July 1925
• Docket Number: April Term.,No. 97,97
• Citation: 204 N.W. 767,231 Mich. 592
• Parties: SANDERS et al. v. CAMPBELL et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

231 Mich. 592

204 N.W. 767

SANDERS et al.

v.CAMPBELL et al.

No. 97, April Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 16, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; A. F. Marschner, Judge.

Suit by Clyde Sanders and others against Edward J. Campbell and another. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Harold M. Shapero and Samuel Shapero, both of Detroit (Paul J. Wieselberg, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

Clyde C. Sanders and Donald J. McGaffey, both of Detroit, for appellees.

McDONALD, C. J.

The purpose of this bill is to enjoin the defendants from violating a building restriction covering property in the La Salle Gardens subdivision in the city of Detroit. The plaintiffs are all property owners in this subdivision, which contains 405 lots. The defendants are the owners of a residence on the north 60 feet of lots 151 and 152, in which they reside, and in which the defendant Edward J. Campbell carries on an extensive real estate business, using the front of his house and front yard for large signs, which are offensive to his neighbors. It is also alleged that he has begun the erection of an addition to his residence with a direct entrance upon Linwood avenue, which he intends to occupy as a real estate office.

The defendants concede that what they are doing constitutes a violation of the building restrictions but deny that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief for two reasons: First, because of their laches; and, second, because of a change in the character of the neighborhood about Linwood avenue, which renders the enforcement of the restriction inequitable at this time.

On the hearing, the circuit judge entered a decree enjoining the use of the property by defendants, except for residence purposes, and commanded them to remove all signs with the exception of a sign 2 feet by 9 inches with the defendants' name and occupation thereon. From this decree the defendants have appealed.

The first question presented by the record is whether the plaintiffs are now estopped by reason of laches from complaining of the defendants' infraction of the restriction.

It is the defendants' claim that Mr. Campbell has conducted a real estate business in his residence since February, 1920, with the knowledge of plaintiffs, but without objection on their part. There is evidence that, about 2 years previous to the beginning of this action, Mr. Kennedy, who had charge of the subdivision for the owner, wrote to Mr. Campbell protesting against the use of these premises for business purposes. Mr. Matthaei, who owns property in the neighborhood, testifies that he talked with Mr. Campbell, but how long before the beginning of suit the record does not show, and that Campbell told him ‘the signs were only temporary, that it was not necessary that he should have them, and that the biggest part of his business was done away from there anyway.’ We think that as to these signs, the delay in bringing suit has not affected plaintiffs' right to have them removed. They are temporary in character and easily removable without injury to the building. In fact, their removal would be a benefit to the property. It is not business property, but is in a strictly residence district. Originally the signs, few in number, consisted of small blackboards leaning against the front porch of the house. As the business increased, the signs increased in number and size. As stated by counsel for the plaintiffs, ‘the progress of the signs was insidious.’ They gradually grew into a stage where, if continued, they would destroy the residential character of the neighborhood, and thus subvert the original plan in the development of the subdivision. During the delay in proceeding against the...