Legal Opinion
Bagiano v. Harrow
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 8, 1929No. Docket No. 31, Calendar No. 34,306PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.
This case involves the italicized clause of the following building restriction:
“Said premises shall not be occupied by a colored person (of Ethiopian descent), nor for the purpose of doing a liquor business thereon and all buildings ‘’shall be placed at least fifteen (15) feet bach of the front line of lots.”
The structure complained of is used as a lumber yard. The main building is properly set back. The part.in controversy is an inclosure attached to the main building, of the same width and extending to the street line, without á roof, with a 10-foot tight board fence in front and 6-foot…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nowell v. Boston Academy of Notre DameMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Crofton v. St. Clement's ChurchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Clark v. LeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Wimer v. YellinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Binswanger v. HymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
3Cited by8 opinions
- Freehling v. Development Management Group, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1979
- Thomas v. DepaoliMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
- Mutual Lumber Co. v. SheppardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1943
- Netter v. Scholtz, MayorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
- Perkins v. YoungWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.