Legal Opinion
Bohm v. Silberstein
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 2, 1922No. Docket No. 37PublishedCited by 18 opinions
Appeal from Wayne; Hart (Burton L.), J., presiding. Bill by George E. Bohm and others against Abraham Silberstein and another to enjoin the violation of certain building restrictions. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.
The record contains a stipulation that “the opinion of the court may be considered and taken as the agreed statement of facts.” We quote from it:
“Plaintiffs, in their bill, pray that defendants be restrained from erecting certain store buildings. Plaintiffs claim that such action on the part of defendants would be illegal on account of certain district restrictions.
“Defendants contend for the right so to do — First, because said restrictions have been waived and abandoned. Second, changed conditions have nullified the restrictions.
“The restricted area is known as ‘Stevens subdivision.’ It is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jackson v. StevensonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- McClure v. . LeaycraftNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Amerman v. . DeaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- McQuade v. WilcoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Orne v. FridenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Ludgate v. SomervilleOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Bethea v. LockhartCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Southwest Petroleum Co. v. LoganSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Booker v. Old Dominion Land Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1948
- Continental Oil Co. v. FennemoreArizona Supreme Court · 1931
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.