Sanborn v. McLean case
brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
206 N.W. 496
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendants
appealed from a decree from a circuit court (Michigan), which
enjoined defendants from erecting a gasoline station at the rear end
of their lot.
FACTS: Defendants were enjoined by decree from erecting gasoline station at the rear of their lot. Defendants insisted that no restrictions appeared in the chain of title and they purchased without notice of any reciprocal negative easement.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court upheld the decree, stating that restrictions were upon defendants' lot while it was still in the hands of common owners.
ANALYSIS:
Further, the abstract of title to defendants' lot revealed the common owners and the record showed deeds of lots in the plat were restricted to perfect and carry out the general plan which resulted in a reciprocal negative easement upon defendants' lot and all lots within its scope. Defendants and their predecessors in title were bound by constructive notice under the recording acts. For 30 years, the united interests of all persons interested had carried out the common purpose of making and keeping all lots strictly residential, and defendants were the first to depart therefrom.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decree with a modification that work already completed on building need not be torn down if the building could be utilized for purpose within restriction.
FACTS: Defendants were enjoined by decree from erecting gasoline station at the rear of their lot. Defendants insisted that no restrictions appeared in the chain of title and they purchased without notice of any reciprocal negative easement.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court upheld the decree, stating that restrictions were upon defendants' lot while it was still in the hands of common owners.
ANALYSIS:
Further, the abstract of title to defendants' lot revealed the common owners and the record showed deeds of lots in the plat were restricted to perfect and carry out the general plan which resulted in a reciprocal negative easement upon defendants' lot and all lots within its scope. Defendants and their predecessors in title were bound by constructive notice under the recording acts. For 30 years, the united interests of all persons interested had carried out the common purpose of making and keeping all lots strictly residential, and defendants were the first to depart therefrom.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decree with a modification that work already completed on building need not be torn down if the building could be utilized for purpose within restriction.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment