Smith v. Lock
| Decision Date | 11 January 1869 |
| Citation | 18 Mich. 56 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gabriel Smith v. William Lock and another |
Heard January 8, 1869 [Syllabus Material]
Appeal in chancery from St. Joseph circuit.
The bill in this cause was filed to enjoin the defendant perpetually from closing up a certain street fronting complainant's premises. The facts are stated in the opinion.
The prayer of the bill was granted.
Decree awarding a perpetual injunction affirmed, with costs.
Wm. L Stoughton, for complainant:
1. This case comes under the well recognized head of equity jurisdiction. Where privileges of a public nature, and yet beneficial to private estates, are secured to proprietors contiguous to places dedicated to public uses, the due enjoyment of them will be protected against encroachments by injunction: 2 Story's Eq. Juris., § 927; Corning v. Lowerre, 6 Johns. Ch., 439; Hills v. Miller 3 Paige 254; Trustees, etc., v. Cowen, 4 Id. 510-514; Sinclair v. Comstock, Har. Ch. Mich., 404.
2. It clearly appears that the defendant executed and acknowledged a plat of the village of Burr Oak, according to the requirements of the statute, and caused it to be duly recorded. This is sufficient to pass the title: 1 Comp. L § 1133; Conner v. New Albany, 1 Blackf. 43; Com. Council, etc., v. Croas, 7 Ind. 9; People v. Beaubien, 2 Doug. Mich., 256.
3. An inspection of the plat shows that the land in question is a street. The location, width and course of Front street are clearly marked out. It is an inseparable part of the plat, and like every other street or alley its extent must be measured by its relation to it. The fact that an imaginary line is not drawn along a part of its south line, does not change its character as a street. It is sufficient if the necessary data are given to determine the length and breadth: Herrick v. Stover, 5 Wend. 581.
It is designated on the plat as a "street." This imports a thoroughfare, not a cul-de-sac: Holden v. Trustees of Cold Spring, 23 Barb. 103; People v. Jackson, 7 Mich. 432; Tillman v. People, 12 Id. 401.
The construction claimed for the plat, is in accordance with the requirements of the statutes, and ought therefore, to be preferred: Broom's Legal Max., 668; 2 Pars. on Con., 500; Booth v. McNair, 14 Mich. 19.
And it is also supported by the subsequent acts and declarations of the defendant.
4. The defendant having executed, acknowledged and recorded the plat of the village of Burr Oak, with "Front street" designated as an open street, and having sold complainant his lot with reference thereto, can not resume and exercise acts of ownership over it, which would deprive his grantee of any privileges or benefits to be derived from having such street left open: Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige 510; Nyman v. Mayor, etc., 11 Wend. 487-501; Livingston v. Mayor, etc., 8 Id. 85; Newport v. Taylor, 16 B. Monroe, 803; Kennedy v. Shipley, 15 Miss. 634; State v. Trask, 6 Vt. 355; State v. Cullen, 3 Id. 530; Cincinnati v. White's Lessees, 6 Peters 432; Sinclair v. Comstock, Har. Ch. Mich., 412; 2 Washb. on Real Prop., 459; Smiles v. Hastings, 24 Barb. 44.
At all events an easement or right of way passed to the complainant by the terms of his grant, and we think vested in him, in common with the public (11 Wend. 501); but whether this be so or not, he is equally entitled to protection.
J. W. Flanders, for defendant:
A court of equity will not restrain a man from making a reasonable improvement on his own premises, upon the ground that it cannot be made without depreciating the value of the adjoining premises, nor upon the ground that the edifice erected upon the adjacent premises does not possess any special privileges, protecting him from the consequences of such improvement either by prescription or grant, from the person making these improvements, or from the person under whom he claims title: Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige 169.
A man is not answerable for the consequences of enjoying his own property in the way in which said property is usually enjoyed, unless an injury results to others from the want of proper care or skill on his part: Radcliff's Ex'rs v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 Comst. 196.
The village plat, admitted in the evidence and proofs taken in this case, establishes the fact that Front street extended no further east than Second street, and of this fact the complainant had full knowledge.
The grantee can not take advantage of a misdescription known to him when he made the contract: Sug. on Vendors, pp. 387, 388.
The village of Burr Oak was laid out and the plat thereof was executed and recorded as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirchen v. Remenga
...the question whether the public have acquired a right of way or not.’ Plumer v. Johnston, 63 Mich. 165, 29 N.W. 687, 690, citing Smith v. Lock, 18 Mich. 56;Purkiss v. Benson, 28 Mich. 538;Karrer v. Berry, 44 Mich. 391, 6 N.W. 853. ‘As between individuals so purchasing and the proprietor, th......
-
Beebe v. Little Rock
...no interest in the rights which Beebe's covenant gave to those who claimed under deeds from the "original claimants." 19 N.J.Eq. 386, 393; 18 Mich. 56; 141 Ill. 89; 81 Cal. 70; 122 N.Y. 214, and cases; 144 N.Y. 316, 326; 37 Mo. 13; 72 Mich. 234; 88 Mo. 155; Washb. Easments, *141, § 22; 21 C......
-
White v. Smith
...are estopped from now claiming that this street did not extend in front of this lot. This question was settled in this State in Smith v. Lock 18 Mich. 56. The question remains as to that part of the property lying west of Louis street. The record of the plat was destroyed by fire and a comp......
-
Reno v. Johnson
...62 N. W. 718;Ellsworth v. Grand Rapids, 27 Mich. 250;White v. Smith, 37 Mich. 291;Neal v. Gilmore, 141 Mich. 519, 104 N. W. 609;Smith v. Lock, 18 Mich. 56;Detroit v. Detroit & Milwaukee R. R. Co., 23 Mich. 173;Hinckley v. Dennison, 169 Mich. 361, 135 N. W. 310;Village of Grandville v. Jenis......