Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Township of Pittsfield v. Malcolm

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1965No. Calendar 16, Docket 50,589Published

1ConcurrenceBlack, J.

( concurring in affirmance). This being an equity case, and the equities being all one way, I would affirm on ground that the plaintiff town*149ship stands at equity’s fount in no better position than would a similarly situated private suitor.*

Having issued the permit and having encouraged defendants to proceed as they did, the township, even though free technically from estoppel, is not entitled to abatement — that is, destruction — -by equity’s process of defendants’ expensively constructed and manifestly valuable business. By the quoted rule there is a limit, to the sometimes legally superior…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Norwegian Barque TheklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Hunt v. State Highway CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Auditor General v. KlenkMichigan Supreme Court · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API