Spencer v. Childers, 38.
Decision Date | 29 November 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 38.,38. |
Parties | SPENCER et al. v. CHILDERS. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Steven and Kate Spencer and others against Morris Childers to enjoin defendant from using a garage as a dwelling. From a decree granting the injunction, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Adolph F. Marschner, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Wendell Brown, of Detroit, for appellant.
Asher L. Cornelius, of Detroit, for appellees.
The parties hereto entered into a written stipulation of facts, wherein it is agreed that defendant Morris Childers is the owner of lot 24, on which the building in question is located and which he acquired by warranty deed on December 16, 1939. The recorded deed to this lot from the original subdividers, dated April 28, 1920, contains the following restrictions:
On August 10, 1920, the Department of Building and Safety Engineering of the City of Detroit granted a building permit to one John McIntosh for the erection of a one story frame garage, size 27x20, the estimated cost of which was $500. This frame garage was erected on substantially the alley line of lot 24 and remained there from 1920 until the purchase of the property by Childers. During this time it was occupied as living quarters by various people. The plaintiffs, 35 in number, are owners of property on Goldengate avenue, west, between Woodward and Charleston avenues in Grix Home Park Subdivision.
The proofs show that on November 28, 1940, the Department of Building and Safety Engineering issued a permit for the alteration of this structure, with permission to move it forward 5 1/2 feet, and install 12x12 inch masonry piers 3 1/2 feet below grade, the cost of the moving operation to be $140.
Plaintiffs filed their bill of complaint on December 2, 1940, and sought to have defendant permanently enjoined from renting the building, making any repairs or alterations thereon,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Dept. of Treasury, Revenue Division v. Campbell
...to the party asserting laches and that it would be inequitable to ignore the prejudice so created. Tray, supra; Spencer v. Childers, 307 Mich. 145, 148, 11 N.W.2d 837 (1943). Finally, "(t)he delay in moving may always be explained, and, if satisfactorily accounted for, relief will be grante......
-
Brydges v. Emmendorfer
...asserting laches which would make it inequitable to disregard the lapse of time and the incidental consequences.’ Spencer v. Childers, 307 Mich. 145, 148, 11 N.W.2d 837, 838. In Becker v. Partridge, 309 Mich. 46, 14 N.W.2d 571, the trustee in bankruptcy filed a bill in chancery in April, 19......
- Molenda v. Simonson
-
Tray v. Whitney
...asserting laches which would make it inequitable to disregard the lapse of time and the incidental consequences.' Spencer v. Childers (1943), 307 Mich. 145, 148, 11 N.W.2d 837.' 311 Mich. at pp. 279, 280, 18 N.W.2d at p. Laches is not the mere passage of time, but is rather the passage of t......