Wood v. Blancke
| Decision Date | 23 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 56.,56. |
| Citation | 8 N.W.2d 67,304 Mich. 283 |
| Parties | WOOD et al. v. BLANCKE et ux. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Logan T. Wood and others against Boudewyn Blancke and Augusta Blancke, his wife, to enjoin the defendants from keeping, housing, or breeding pigeons upon their lots in alleged violation of covenants in deed thereto. From a decree for plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.
Decree affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Lila M. Neuenfelt, Judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Howard L.Richards, of Detroit, for defendants and appellants.
Alexander P. Leete and Harry J. Merrick, both of Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellees.
Plaintiffs Wood, and some 40 others who join with them, reside in the Village of Lochmoor (now Grosse Pointe Woods), Wayne county, Michigan, and are the owners of various properties described as-‘part of Private Claims 156, 183 and 577, front and rear concessions, lying east of center of Mack Avenue, Village of Grosse Pointe Shores and Township of Grosse Pointe, Wayne County, Michigan, according to the plat thereof recorded in the office of the register of deeds for Wayne County, Michigan, in Liber 38 of Plats, pages 89 and 90.’ Defendants Boudewyn Blancke and Augusta Blancke, his wife, are the owners of Lot 263 in this subdivision, having obtained title thereto by warranty deed from the Grosse Pointe Township Improvement Company, a Michigan corporation, on June 28, 1940. The conveyances by which plaintiffs and defendants hold title contain covenants reading as follows:
“It is hereby expressly understood between the parties hereto that the following conditions and restrictions are of the essence of this agreement and the said parties of the second part purchase said premises upon the express understanding that these conditions and restrictions run with the land and that said parties of the second part will comply with the same in every respect; these conditions and restrictions are as follows:
* * *
“(h) It is a condition of this agreement that only one single residence shall be constructed on each of the lots on this subdivision and that the same shall be used for residence purposes only, excepting lots 110 to 124, both inclusive.
* * *
It is undisputed that the subdivision in question contains a fine grade of single residences costing not less than $10,000, and that there has been no breach of any of the building restrictions since the property was platted in 1917.
Plaintiff Alexander P. Leete, on November 8, 1940, wrote a letter to defendant Boudewyn Blancke, then residing at 5263 Maryland, Detroit, in which he stated that he and certain owners of properties in the subdivision had learned that defendant intended to rearrange the garage upon the lot he had purchased to include a loft for the housing and breeding of carrier pigeons. Defendant's attention was directed to the restrictive covenants, and he was informed that such use of the premises would be objectionable. It is charged that Blancke then called upon Leete and stated to him and several others that he intended to keep about 40 pigeons in the garage, but would not make any change in the existing building until he moved into the property sometime in January, 1941, and that he would then move his flock of about 100 pigeons into the premises.
On January 4, 1941, plaintiffs filed a bill of complaint seeking an injunction restraining defendants from keeping, housing, or breeding pigeons upon their lot or any other lot in the subdivision. Upon the trial of the matter, it was conceded that the question of whether the keeping of racing pigeons was a nuisance was not at issue.
Defendant Boudewyn Blancke testified that he had 34 birds in his garage which were bred and kept for racing purposes only, and that he races them about 20 times a year. The testimony clearly shows that the defendant does not raise pigeons for commercial purposes, but only for sport. He contends that he is just as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. St. Clair
...in an individual or private state.' See also Paine v. Bergrose Development Corp., 119 Misc. 796, 198 N.Y.S. 311, 312. In Wood v. Blancke, 304 Mich. 283, 8 N.W.2d 67, 69, the court stated: '* * * covenants restricting the erection of any building except fordwelling house purposes have been h......
-
Bloomfield Estates v. City of Birmingham
...use of Lot 52 as a dog park violated the deed restriction as well. Our prior holdings support this conclusion. Cf. Wood v. Blancke, 304 Mich. 283, 288-289, 8 N.W.2d 67 (1943) (The raising of 40 carrier pigeons for private use did not constitute use for "residence purposes."). Defendant argu......
-
Terrien v. Zwit
...Michigan, supporting the right of property owners to create and enforce covenants affecting their own property.19Wood v. Blancke, 304 Mich. 283, 287-288, 8 N.W.2d 67 (1943). It is a fundamental principle, both with regard to our citizens' expectations and in our jurisprudence, that property......
-
City of Livonia v. Department of Social Services
...of property. Boston-Edison Protective Ass'n v. Paulist Fathers, Inc., 306 Mich. 253, 258-259, 10 N.W.2d 847 (1943); Wood v. Blancke, 304 Mich. 283, 287, 8 N.W.2d 67 (1943). Nevertheless, restrictions which are clear on their face, reasonable in scope, and do not violate public policy will b......