Peek v. Roe
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Wayne; Lillibridge, J. Bill by Cynthia M. Peek against Jennie Roe and Charles Roe, Jr., to abate a nuisance. Prom a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Complainant and defendants are the owners of adjoining lots. Complainant’s house is situated about a foot from the division line.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wayne; Lillibridge, J. Bill by Cynthia M. Peek against Jennie Roe and Charles Roe, Jr., to abate a nuisance. Prom a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Complainant and defendants are the owners of adjoining lots. Complainant’s house is situated about a foot from the division line. The defendants maintain a board fence 10 feet 9 inches high, which shuts out the light from the rooms of the complainant, and prevents a circulation of air, thereby rendering her house damp and unhealthy. A bill was filed to restrain the defendants from maintaining this fence to a greater height…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). The main point in the case is ruled by Kirkwood v. Finegan, 95 Mich. 543, and Flaherty v. Moran, 81 Mich. 52 (21 Am. St. Rep. 510). The principal defense appears to be that the defendants are not shown to be the parties responsible for the erection and maintenance of the fence. Defendant Jennie Roe lives in the house, as does also her father. Defendant Charles Roe, Jr., is the owner of an undivided interest as the heir of his mother, of whose estate he is the administrator. We think the evidence sufficient to show that both defendants are responsible for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Flaherty v. MoranMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Kirkwood v. FineganMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hasselbring v. KoepkeMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Hornsby v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Barger v. . BarringerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Hibbard v. HallidaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Norton v. RandolphSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.