Goodlove v. Hamburger

187 N.W. 398, 218 Mich. 156, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 550
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 30, 1922
DocketDocket No. 182
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 N.W. 398 (Goodlove v. Hamburger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goodlove v. Hamburger, 187 N.W. 398, 218 Mich. 156, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 550 (Mich. 1922).

Opinion

Steere, J.

Plaintiffs, who are property owners and [157]*157residents on Ivanhoe avenue in the Tireman subdivision of the city of Detroit, filed this! bill to restrain construction by defendants of a one-story gasoline filling station which they had started on a site in said subdivision located at the southwest intersection, or comer, of Ivanhoe and Grand River avenues. The Tireman subdivision lies adjacent to and extends westerly from Grand River avenue, which runs from the central portion of the city in a northwesterly direction. An alley parallel to it runs through the subdivision a short distance west with lots between the alley and Grand River avenue fronting on the latter, while to the west of the alley lots in the subdivision front on avenues running directly east and west connecting with Grand River avenue at an angle. The names of two of these avenues were subsequently changed from Thornton and Tireman to Spokane and Ivanhoe.

On June 27, 1913, Joseph Tireman and wife, who owned and platted the subdivision, executed and on July 5th recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Wayne county a declaration of building restrictions thereon providing, so far as material here, as follows:

“All lots in the subdivision are to be used for residence purposes only except lots fronting on Grand River avenue on which solid brick mercantile büildings or residences or a combination of both may be erected at a cost of not less than three thousand (3,000) dollars and not less than two stories in height. * * *
“For the entire frontage on Thornton (Spokane) ' avenue and Tireman place (Ivanhoe avenue) from alley parallel to and westerly of Grand River avenue to the westerly line of the subdivision, no building shall be built, erected or maintained nearer than 30 feet to the front or street line of said premises. * * * No buildings for mercantile or residence purposes shall be erected nearer than twenty feet to the street line of Maplewood avenue, Thornton (Spokane) avenue or Tireman place (Ivanhoe avenue). * * * Thorn[158]*158ton (Spokane) avenue and Tireman place (Ivanhoe avenue), between Grand River and Beechwood avenues, single residence only, not less than two (2) stories high, costing not less than three thousand (3,000) dollars.”

The fact that it was planned to be a strictly residential district with rigid building restrictions was advertised and emphasized as an inducement to purchase. A prospectus used in the sale of lots describing the subdivision in attractive terms pointed out that those restrictions, which would result in freedom from “all objectionable city features,” had been put of record, calling attention to a complete copy of the restrictions on the opposite page of the prospectus.

When this suit was commenced the great majority of lots on Ivanhoe and Spokane avenues were occupied with costly residences on both sides, with but a few double houses or family flats in the second and third blocks to the west of Grand River avenue where they were permitted under the restrictions. In the first block next to Grand River avenue only single, two-story dwellings were built on the lots facing those streets. On Ivanhoe avenue there were in the first block approximately 42 expensive residences of an average value of $25,000 or $30,000 and running up to $75,000. It was shown to be a particularly desirable residence district and Ivanhoe was said to be “the best street out Grand River from the Boulevard north as far as you want to go. * * * the most highly restricted street, the most valuable street.” The trial judge after viewing the premises found “the streets in this subdivision, as well as others in the immediate vicinity, of a high class residence character,” and that Grand River avenue was a busy thoroughfare, “fast becoming a business street.”

On August 25, 1919, Mrs. Tireman (whose husband had died) sold to George W. Rudell on contract certain descriptions in this subdivision, amongst which [159]*159were lots on block one facing' Grand River avenue, including the site in question, which is a corner lot fronting 50 feet on Grand River avenue and extending westerly that width to the alley with Ivanhoe avenue as a side street on its north. This contract provided:

“The above mentioned premises are conveyed subject to building restrictions recorded in the register’s office, Wayne county, Michigan, in liber 914, page 304 of deeds, with the exception that each dwelling erected'' is to be constructed of solid brick, brick veneer, or stucco, with slate or tile roof and to cost not less than five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars.”

On September 10, 1920, Rudell, with the consent of Mrs. Tireman, sold and assigned all his remaining interest in this contract, which yet included the site in question, to defendants Hamburger who on their part obligated themselves over their signatures as follows:

“And the said Max Hamburger and Charles Hamburger, in consideration of the premises hereby assume and agree to carry out all parts of said contract (not already performed), provided in said contract to be performed by the party of the second part thereto.”

Early in 1921 (exact date is left blank in printed record) the Hamburgers entered into a land contract with the defendant Standard Oil Company to sell it this site for $24,000 with a payment of $500 down, the latter agreeing as soon as construction could be commenced in the spring to break ground and erect as rapidly as possible a described brick filling station on the premises, and, if all went well in the matter of restrictions, to complete the purchase of said real estate on or before August 1, 1921. The contract is abundant in details, but the following excerpt from its recitals indicates the nature of the project:

“It is understood and agreed that the party of the second part desires to purchase the above described land for the purpose of erecting and conducting a one [160]*160story oil and gasoline filling station for the supply of automobiles and other gasoline driven vehicles, and desires to erect and operate on said land said one story station together with the usual and necessary driveways, and whereas the said real estate is subject to a building restriction providing that lots fronting on Grand River avenue shall be improved by a solid brick mercantile building of two stories in height and cost not less than three thousand dollars ($3,000) and that no building shall be built nearer than twenty (20) feet to the line of said Ivanhoe avenue, and that the parties of the second part are of the opinion that said premises can be used by the party of the second part for the erection and operation of such a gasoline filling station and to give the party of the second part an opportunity to test said question, it is hereby agreed as follows:” * * *

Plaintiffs apparently did not realize any too soon that in some sections eternal vigilance is the price of a building restriction as defendants make the point that the side walls of the filling station were up half way or more when this suit was begun, although the bill was filed and summons issued March 31, 1921. The trial court in its decree refused to enjoin erection of the proposed building, but restricted its extension beyond 20 feet from the curb line of Ivanhoe avenue, including the so-called “canopy,” or portico formed by its projecting roof supported on corner piers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sherrard v. Fine
192 N.W. 564 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 N.W. 398, 218 Mich. 156, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodlove-v-hamburger-mich-1922.