Smith v. Lock

18 Mich. 56, 1869 Mich. LEXIS 81
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 11, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 18 Mich. 56 (Smith v. Lock) 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
Smith v. Lock, 18 Mich. 56, 1869 Mich. LEXIS 81 (Mich. 1869).

Opinion

Cooley Ch. J.

It appears by this record that Lock conveyed to Smith a lot in the village of Burr Oak, described as “commencing at the north east corner of the M. S. Railroad depot grounds in the village of Burr Oak, thence south one hundred feet, thence easterly along the line of the company’s ground until it intersects the creek, thence northerly along the line of said creek until it intersects the line of Front street, thence westerly along said line of said street to the place of beginning.”

[60]*60Afterwards, Lock claiming tbat Front street did not extend along tbe front of this lot, sold the land on the north side of the lot up to Smith’s line to Hinkley, and Hinkley thereupon proceeded to build a house upon the land so purchased. This bill was filed to obtain a perpetual injunction. ‘It was not disputed that there was a street known as Front street, extending to complainant’s lot on the west, and which was fifty feet in width, and which, if extended in front of the lot in question would include the erection Hinkley is making.

■Defendants appear to claim that if no street has been regularly laid out or dedicated to the public, in front of complainant’s lot, this bill must be dismissed; but this is an error. The purchase of the lot described as bounded on a street,, estops the grantor from shutting it up so as to prevent his grantee making use of it for his own' accommodation in the enjoyment of his purchase. It is a matter of private right, and in no way depends upon the question whether the public have acquired a right of way or not.

The decree awarding a perpetual injunction must be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Nickson v. Garry
179 P.2d 524 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1947)
Kirchen v. Remenga
288 N.W. 344 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
Malone v. Decatur Cotton Compress Co.
100 So. 807 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Reno v. Johnson
194 N.W. 529 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Babcock v. Heenan
159 N.W. 494 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Sweatman v. Bathrick
95 N.W. 422 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Teasley v. Stanton
136 Ala. 641 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Ranscht v. Wright
9 A.D. 108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Ruddiman v. Taylor
55 N.W. 376 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Lankin v. Terwilliger
29 P. 268 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1892)
People v. Miller
44 N.W. 172 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Copas v. Anglo-American Provision Co.
41 N.W. 690 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Plumer v. Johnston
29 N.W. 687 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
Lowe v. Redgate
42 Ohio St. (N.S.) 329 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1884)
Bell v. Todd
16 N.W. 304 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1883)
Grand Rapids & Indiana R. R. v. Heisel
11 N.W. 212 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1882)
Karrer v. Berry
6 N.W. 853 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1880)
White v. Smith
37 Mich. 291 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1877)
Zearing v. Raber
74 Ill. 409 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1874)
City of Detroit v. Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad
23 Mich. 173 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Mich. 56, 1869 Mich. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-lock-mich-1869.