St. R. Co. of E. Saginaw v. Wildman

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: MORSE
• Citation: 58 Mich. 286,25 N.W. 193
• Decision Date: 28 October 1885
• Parties: STREET R. CO. OF EAST SAGINAW v. WILDMAN.

58 Mich. 286
25 N.W. 193

STREET R. CO. OF EAST SAGINAW
v.
WILDMAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Filed October 28, 1885.

Appeal from Saginaw.

[25 N.W. 193]

Tarsney & Weadock, for complainant and appellant.

Hanchett & Stark, for defendant.

MORSE, C.J.

August 21, 1883, the complainant, a corporation duly organized and conducting the business of operating a street railroad upon and along the streets and over the bridges of East Saginaw, claiming the exclusive right to do so under an ordinance of said city granting it the franchise, filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court for the county of Saginaw, in chancery, against the defendant, James Wildman, alleging its rights in the premises, and that said defendant was threatening to remove a large frame

[25 N.W. 194]

building, of which he was the owner, upon and along Washington avenue, over and upon its track on said street, a distance of three-quarters of a mile, in violation of its rights, to the great interruption of its business and profits, the serious inconvenience of the public, and the hindrance and delay of the United States mails which it carried, to the injury and damage of said complainant of at least $300; that such removal would be a nuisance because of its effect upon public travel; and that the damages sustained by the corporation would be of such a character as to be incapable of adjustment and estimation at law; and praying for an injunction restraining defendant from removing the building, and for such other relief as the nature of the case might require.

Upon filing the bill a temporary injunction was granted as asked, and the defendant in due time answered. Proofs were taken and hearing had thereon. May 15, 1885, a decree was entered in the court below dismissing the bill.

In the view we take of the case, as presented in this court, it is not necessary to set forth the averments of the bill or answer. It appears from an examination of the record, and also from the admission of counsel for complainant, upon the hearing here, that the temporary injunction granted at the time of the filing of the bill was afterwards, and before the closing of proofs and hearing in the court below, modified so as to permit the building being moved. Also, that the building was moved before the hearing.

We need not go into the merits of this controversy. If the complainant was ever entitled to the relief prayed for, we cannot now make any decree to aid it. The bill is an injunction bill, pure and simple,...