Loucks v. Bauman

v. BAUMAN. LOUCKS Leg Disability Compensation Amputation of —Total Workmen’s — Development. Compensation —Further —-Further held, leg loss paid compensation for of left Pumper who antedating period for a compensation not to further entitled filed, disability for due year application total of time instability right leg, where workmen’s disability from both found that the total resulted amputation leg and unstable condition of left original had since date of existed compensation for the injury-, application being for further original injury for for 1948, 413.14). development (CL a further Voelker, Smith, Black, JJ., granting for dismissal of writ review. Compensation Appeal Appeal from Workmen’s (Docket April 18, 100, No. Board. 1958. Submitted 47,631.) January 1959. Calendar No. Decided receiving compensation Harvey for Loucks, after specific injury amputation leg, presented due to against Bauman, claim Leo his Marshall H. S. Schrot compensa- additional and State Accident Fund for plain- limb: Award tion of use other part, appeal. tiff. in Affirmed reversed Defendants part. plaintiff. L. Miles,

R. Dodge, Briggs (Stanley counsel), Harry F. defendants. References for Points Headnotes Compensation Jur,

58 Am Workmen’s §§ v. Bauman. C. J. On Jane suf Dethmers, amputation necessitating fered an accidental leg. of his left On Marсh 1948, the workmen’s compensa compensation commission* him awarded leg, tion for payments weeks 200 for loss of left his April ending 1951. 20, plaintiff application 12, 1954,

On filed November adjustment hearing injuries for and of claim for right leg his in that same accident on sustained June 4, compensa 20, June 1957, On workmen’s tion board made a him for further award to disability finding total clearly based on that, its “The record plaintiff totally- that

indicates been has performing pumper disabled work from of a since injury, only amputation his left of the because of his by but also reason of unstable condition right leg independent leg.” They of his of his left compеnsation May awarded from Decem 11, 1951,to ber 31, 1952. rely § on

Defendants and 413.14 1948, CL (Stat 17.188), provides: § Ann 1950Rev which payment compensation (other “If is made than expenses) application medical and an further for compensation commission, is later filed with the compensation by shall be awarded the commission for any period year prior 1 which is more than to the date filing application.” of such urge Lynch Briggs controlling Defendants as v. Manufacturing applied Co., 168, 329 Mich quoted 1-year statutory limitation on the retroactive compensation. effect of an further On this that, authority, defendants contend it not cоm was petent compensation for the board to allow pensation of the workmen’s men’s porter. (CLS 1956, §408.10, ^[*] Certain compensation appeal commission powers compensation and duties with reference to the administration in Stat 1948, Ann have been act, ^[1957] vested in the workmen’s com- PA Cum transferred 1955, Supp No 17.6 62, ^[16] ch ).—Re- 1, work- 10§

516 being any period 12, 1953, November filing application, prior plaintiff’s year his period award, made, for a as because antedating that date is void and should be reversed. Morgan Lloyds Inc., Builders relies on

Plaintiff plaintiff an There the had suffered 344 Mich 524. piece January eye injury 14, 1948, on accidental eye, which, a course his after metal entered eye. surgically from his removed treatment, paid had In that connection he from been January January from December 31, 1948, 15 to 13, January In further 11, 1949. difficulty eye, developed his for which he of vision doctors, which resulted treated May July eye 1951. On the filed adjustment him entitled claim. This Court held eye May 9, from the date of of for loss of the its the years prior filing loss, which was over application. 1- the Court held mentioned This statutory inapplicable year the limitation because July application not, in the 1953, filed on was language application for further statute, the “an of compensation,” petition rаther, for of but, “a loss development” to a “further vision,” which amounted disability original occurring for which com after the Morgan paid. pensation already distinguishable was Thus, had been 1-year Lynch, lim in which the from application applied, Lynch the itation was was because plain compensation” inasmuch as “further totally held “still disabled his there was to be tiff occupational employment in because his skilled of (date original jury injury) there of 1946” of Morgan. finding development subsequent inas no of plaintiff speaks a In the of further case, instant development, leg, in that after of the left loss weight-bearing to the оf Louck’s “increased due loss leg directly aggravated the left contributed to v. Batimán. Lotices right leg.” of his condition unstable board made finding disability fact that of no such development, right leg a further and there of the theory ap- support testimony in the such contrary, expressly pendix. board ‍​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‍theOn plaintiff’s disability resulted from total found amputation of the left and the unstable both the right leg which had existed of the since condition injury 1947. This of on June his accidental date finding according of of the fact is, then, development, resulting board, not a of a further case compensation- disability did exist when a leg, rather, left but, for the wаs allowed loss disability application compensation for a for further injury, existing on award from the date of which an quoted language may compensation not, under any period than 1 made more statute, application prior year filing on November plain- which, found that The award of disability resulting from an tiff had arose out that he employment, in the but of and course his wage November had since suffered no appearing prior year being 1 the date on compensation, that, for further compensation bene- he therefore, was not entitled having applied the mentioned thus fits. The referee 1-year and denied limitation of the statute compensation for de- no occasion benefits, there was appeal to the workmen’s fendant, finding disability appeal arising from referee’s employment, to out of and in the course any urge the bar of statute Necessity 1-year period. there- antedating the time only appeal appeal after here, on for arose statutory of that granted in violation question provision does of statute bar. fixing a time impose actions, limitation a may limit brought, within which may actions by be deemed waived defendant’s failure to assert it contrary, plаces defense, but, on the it a limitation power appeal on the board which cannot be by parties. appeal waived expressly We allowed limited to the sole appli- of the effect and cability statutory of this limitation or bar. Plaintiff question only has briefed that in this Court, as has point defendant, has not raised the that defend- argue statutory ant failed raise or bar before properly the appeal. board. It is before us on this The award is reversed and set aside insofar as it provides compensation prior to November JJ., concurred with Dethmers, Carr and Kelly, C. J. (for writ). Lawyers dismissal J. Black, judges say are wont to hard cases make bad law. contemplative appellate Yet the student decisions ap- that the knows soft antithetic case-—the one of parent insignificance presentation— and indifferent always greatest regrettable has been our breeder of precedent. depending majority swing This, may vote, becomesuch case. special granting

Our certiorari in this case was entered November 1957. It reads as fol : lows application by “In this cause is filed defendants for leave to from an order of the workmen’s opposi- board and an answer having tion thereto been filed and due court, consideration thereof been had ordered be and the same is ap- question (Stat

hereby granted, single limited pellants’ claim that 1948 413.14 CL Ann v. Bauman. 17.188) currently § or limits the award Rev bars consideration.” under separate assigning Brothers, our reasons,

Two of “single allege question” the limited above is says properly us. One that section 413.14 before power appeal “places a limitation on the board by parties.” I be shall which cannot waived This appeal says did later. Another “The board discuss apparently (of case have issue makes, 413.14) it, since its order section applied 1-year limitation date to the reference the referee.”* grants pur certiorari, this Court First: When part 3 com 12 of of the workmen’s suant to section pensation (CL [Stat 1950Rev Ann 1948, 413.12 act hearing any question §17.186]), do review we (we “may”) may say due absent have decided referee appeal question to the presentation of the same re one of the answer has been now, board? Until pose. Rapids Co., 209, 346 Mich Grand Fuel Witt v. De brought posed so 218: “The open to eon- it is not of the commission attention * “reference,” appeal board’s appraise may That the reader carefully confined (not review which is complete opinion on its it) margin-quoted as questions presented before counsel follows: appeal workmen’s having before the “This cause come Hearing the award of of the defendants from board disability leg as finding plaintiff had in his Referee Nolan a 1947, 20, that he had suffered but result of the June 9, 1953, denying com- wage and therefore loss since November of the evidence taken and pensation; after due consideration (the made a arguments and briefs of counsel finding the award law) appearing board that and it of facts aforesaid, made, as should be modified. “Therefore, of the it is ordered that the award hereby to receive and is entitled and it is modified per $21 at rate from the defendants recover 1951, inclusive, 11, 1951, and at the May to December from week rate inclusive.” January 1, $8.68 per from December week (McLean Manfg. sideration here v. Eaton Co., 286 285).”* Mich Manfg. Eaton Co., McLean v. 286 Mich 290: opinion department ques “The is silent on the sufficiency of tion bill. the of the evidence to Dr. Foust’s questions do not consider We raised in a claim department of from a decision of the of labor industry affirmatively appears and unless that the point specifically urged department. before the See Aske v. W. E. Co., Wood 248 327, Mich where the Court said: “ department ‘The rules of the in- and labor dustry require employer, liability, denying if to set certainty forth with reasonable detail and the grounds upon. of defense relied Review here is points presented limited made and points only there. We will consider such as the record affirma- tively presented shows were to the commission for point decision. This record of loaned that the does not show employee the was submitted to commission. enough point It is not that the could have been presented under the notice of and the evi- contest dencе.’ also, Hulse, v. & “See, 556, Wheat Clark 227 Mich question applicabil held that the where the Court

ity general of the statute of limitations was not particularity stated with sufficient in the department, ap the to be on for review considered peal Supreme Court.” Co., 268Mich 668, Fleischman Yeast 672: Moore v. industry adopted department of labor and “The rules procedure practice carrying pro out and compensation act. of the workmen’s Rule visions deny provides employer if 15 that or insurer No liability, they setting forth must file an answer with certainty all details and the essential reasonable formerly transferred ^[*] By Cum board. See PA vested Supp generally to the No 17.6 section 10 [16]). workmen’s “appellate newly-created thereof, CLS functions, powers workmen’s § 408.10 commission and duties” (Stat were Ann v. Bauman. they grounds will be limited defense, to which both deputy hearing be on review on before exceptional commission, unless cases fore permitted good an amendment is for he filed. cause shown Appellants their ex defense almost based employ ground clusively on there was no gave Appellants no notice of additional ment. plaintiff ground was not hound to of defense Kelsey Co., Mich 299.” Roach v. Wheel meet it. Raykov Co.,256Mich Window Casement Crittall deputy com before the 28, 29, 30: “At point missioner, had not answered raised the defendants stop compensation, petition their department. No 20 cited Rule rules and The record show this have been does urged Therefore commission review. E. Wood not be here. v. W. it will considered Aske Co., 248 Mich 327.” Holmes, Mich 574: “Defend- Reno v. agreement urge that the here ants judicata cite the hold- foot res and for the loss of a is ings may to the effect that the commission of this Court grant rehearings. such claim But no was not Kelsey liability. denying Wheel In Roach v. inmade power considered of Co., 200 Mich we adopt- quoted (then) 5 Buie No rules, to make board are to such as the defenses it which limited ed 305): (p liability, said in of stated denial “ power question was within the of ‘The rule adopt. valid; it not reasonable and It hoard is it, litigants only it but before board, binds the Being within the Court. reasonable binds this power it and follow board, must of this Court recognize coming for review.’ in cases here judicata, made not been “The defense res liability, not he here can denial of defendants’ urged.” Doherty Township 592 Isle, 205 Mich Grosse employee Doherty that was a casual 599: “The claim concededly properly before the acci- raised upon passed it. Defendant’s nоr dent board liability grounds in denial of filed of defense written

with, to5, Rule No which defend- under its the board In notice of claim. contains no such limited, ant is substantially particular as in the situation is that Kelsey Co., Mich Wheel where Roach v. subject amply is discussed.” quotation Phrasing Ashe, it from McLean’s “affirmatively first is whether the record (al “single question” of limitation that the shows’^ leged 413.14) this Court under said section presented Better decision. gives especially record, than one forth an Ashe’s “affirmatively forceful It that the to the answer. shows” “single question” was not mentioned submitted parties board for decision and that the care fully themselvеs, confined referee as well questions, as the board, defensive neither curtailing- which us is before on account scope of 26, 1957. our said of November What an more, is defendants’ unamended and detailed swer, claim filed below November makes no present application or hint that Mr. Loucks’ remote compensation” “an further (Stat 17.188) § 413.14 Ann 1950 said CL should Rev my applied.* By authority, then, do what parties assume to Brothers decide which the studiously avoided below? authority, reasoning Justice, Chief without or viz.,

answers .14 413 above, as stated said section “places power a ‍​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‍limitation on the by parties.” At this board which сannot be waived point, foregoing considered, unanimous authorities major undersigned disagreement. we come to will into of such meritorious be enticed decision * Indeed, board, appeal charac in their brief defendants “application hearing.” appendix. terize it for See an 523 v. Bauman. case, ap- in this or some future until, premise the pivot ashed determine hoard is peal that an application compensa- thereof, namely, from such arising disability, dis- wage tion for loss arisen from to a ultimately ability having industrial accident same caused member member specifically-compensable which another filed after com- lost, (when payment becomes loss) for the an specific application pensation 413.14. within said section further (disability situation the reverse of this award For second) Morgan loss award see specific first and Inc., 344 Mich 524. There this Court Builders Lloyds of said distinguished purposes expressly —for for dis- 413.14—an award of section from award for specific ability-caused wage in such re- Morgan not stand alone And does loss. in Jones v. of Mr. See Justice gard. opinion Smith distinc- Co., where the same 356 Mich 487, Cutler Oil reasoning. interpretive irrefutable tion is made with above mentioned questions 2The defensive before motion to dismiss made the basis of a were defend questions the only were They referee. only were They the referee. ants urged and submitted defendants briefed questions ap questions are the They board. in its shown and decide as did consider peal re excellently-reasoned opinion unanimous and (along included were Later, questions view. such under said posed “single question” new with the for leave defendants’ 413.14) section found in defend will be questions Such appeal. board.* brief ants’

reviewable to Rule No board, pendix. ^[*] This ease was under the questions. heading “Argument,” submitted to departmental It will be found annexed rules. Defendants’ states board on argues hereto as an briefs, brief the desired pursuant ap Michigan Reports. of the tran reading complete then: Careful

Now ref before the testimony proceedings and script under defendants, quite that conclusion leads to eree interested —in exclusively and solely standably, were a favorable answer obtaining below —in both forums answer or Such questions. of the raised to either out, the effect of wiping if would have given answers comp every claim all, once and adjudication by having- defendants Mr. against Loucks — ensation lost the by the other injured one leg might or have might presented accident of 1947— of the 1947 following payment hereafter present In our view leg). the one (of award for pleadings, complete absence —in explains here brought entire record as briefs and transcripts, 413.14. section —of said any by any party address nota (if hearing that proves It also that form of award* shows tion upon printed ques the presented that avoiding his purpose 413.14) proceeded said section by applying tions that defendants did on his own motion and solely board, any review, not care to Too, actually presented. aside from those that undersigned Court explains view no of applicability undertаke determination should until the 413.14 unless and of section any case to do so. or has refused done so board has enig- that Second: gratuitous It is said written referee, as hearing matic notation at constitutes (quoted margin), into the award him here brought “single question” that evidence decided the referee. as well as raised before vember of June efits.” 1956, by “Plaintiff has a ^[*] following printed form of finding only: and is therefore not entitled to disability However, referee, “award,” in his he consists has suffered signed simply under no of filled a result of the wage compensation ben date of loss since No blanks April plus v. Bauman. being indirect no dirеct or reference said There anywhere in record the voluminous section 413.14— proceedings testimony certified to ns—and as Loucks’ 1947 and 1954 suggestion Mr. below under section so were related application for further “an latter constituted appear compensation,” that Brothers it would our they point And, as heave strain themselves. at this mighty receive we note that Brothers unison, support.from counsel. latter defendants’ temerity suggest that either the ref not the to have appeal any asked to board was decide eree or the question section 413.14. under (November 9,1953) specified by the

Even the date a matter in referee cannot be fitted—as of part statute, tention on his since date —to filing plaintiff’s application of of was November Surely, if the referee on own motion and his advising application to counsel was intent on without the of it fair to 413.14, case said section is assume statutory provi that, identified the intended explicit form that sion, he would have ruled some application, as filed November defendants’ plaintiff (in light previous payment was of to ap specific loss) 1-year-limited a of an award compensation.” plication for “further Whatever appeal may mind, have had in it not the job quoted cryptogram short of to decode his board’s by request party. turn, either In such is no function by Court on review certiorari. Better indeed this appellate that known we stick our last. “single it briefed the

But is has said point question” above and failed “raise has argue defendant(s) or statu- failed raise tory To this our board.” bar before counsel— The action inaction of answer is short. or stipulation agreeable any if indeed, their —cannot questions by serve- make reviewable Court Michigan Reports. brought to attention board. not Our statutory by jurisdiction, review certiorari appellate only. board, is decisions not hear and determine cases- doWe novo. de recapitulate: have erred case.

To once We groundless applica legally a out What turns erroneously, inadvertently, if for certiorari tion special quoted granted Misled— our infra. unintentionally supporting to be briefs sure— opposing application, defendants’ unani this Court mously resolved to for the issue its writ sole and as; purpose reviewing limited which, complete record,, nowwe discover on review of the according is reviewable to consistent declarations appearing reports. in our first This еrror is under repaired. easily standable. Likewise by separately-submitted opinions, Now, pro it is posed again. that we err This second error, majority support infinitely if receive it will be worse- the contemplated knowledge than first* it will because have been committed with facts, of decisive im pels observation that confession the first is better awkwardly justify than an reasoned ‍​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‍effort to it. The up mistakes, if one be added to the other, make a compound pedantic this bitters will Court to have swallow in some future case. (CL [Stat statute Ann 1950 Rev § 413.16 17.190]) expressly questions “All commands that

arising by under shall this act be determined compensation [now appeal board].” commission applicability Since the of section 413.14 originated previous here, has without submission appears thereof board, to the under- signed proceed that some of our Brethren would ignore the statute as well as fixed rules which

* “So the error last shall be than worse the first.” Matthew 27:64. v. Bauman. (by certiorari) expressly on review function our standing as we now do in Furthermore, limited. interpretation particular anof involved and field of labyrinthian statute board is statute —a apply perfect interpret steadily required a and perplexing think it cases, wise to ob- maze —we training specialized experience and that the serve relevantly tran- of the members learning general and that Court more scend our just possible, ever- the sake should, whenever writing certainty accuracy bench and needful the board’s State, on the benefit of of this insist law interpret on it undertakes certiorari to views apply of such stat- or sections a section ute. improv- writ as been would dismiss the

We idently issued. J. JJ., concurred with Black, Voelkee,

Smith

APPENDIX (Defendant’s complete appeal board, brief to the heading

commencing “Argument.”) with AKGÜMENT January on constitute 1. Did the injuries plaintiff rehearing a аs sustained 20, 1947, June commission made a where workmen’s prior finding injuries on March 1948? such repeatedly Supreme It has been held Court may department that the workmen’s Manfg. rehearing. grant McLean v. Eaton Utley Boyich Co., A. 285 and J. Co., Mich hearing objected Mich The defendants application the instant asked that case, and supra, It in the Case, dismissed. was said McLean 294: rehearing reopening “A a involves of the case for * * * redemption a of basic facts. This de-

partment may permit.” Certainly injuries incurred at the time of the accident on June 1947 were basic facts which findings were determined in the of the workmen’s- compensation commission on March 1948. No- injury right leg mention an was made of to the opinion. the commission’s aAs fact, matter of findings could be said that and order of the- judicata injuries- commission were res as to the Boyich sustained at time Case, accident. supra. plaintiff give employers

2. Did the notice to his injury right leg an to the and make claim com- pensation period statutory benefits within the as alleged injury? a result of the any nothing In event, there is record plaintiff gave this case to indicate that the notice- employer injury to the of an result of the accident of 20, 1947, June nor there- anything employers to indiсate that the defendant knowledge injury had notice or of such an as now plaintiff. claimed No claim for such plaintiff was made until the filed his hearing torney 12, 1954. on November of At See letter

L.R. Miles, dated October 29, 1954, attached application. comply failed to injury. with the statute toas notice and claim RELIEN Defendants contend their motion to dismiss- granted by should have been referee] again repeat for the reasons stated, motion,¡ v. Bauman. hearing and ask further that the award of reversed; be set aside and (concurring partial in J. denial com- Edwards, of pensation) Harvey . Plaintiff in matter, Loucks, injured was June in 20, 1947, course his em- ployment pumper. appears as an oil well It question, attempting on the date in in to start an pump kicking flywheel oil well with foot, his pump suddenly, catching started his foot or feet throwing Essentially undisputed him around. mangling facts indicate severe of the left which amputation, injury resulted its to his knee. application compensation

Claimant filed for Octo listing disability 24, 1947, ber the nature of his leg amputated “left above the he knee,” and subsequently compensation awarded for 200 weeks against coemployers loss cur rently named. expired payments April 20, 1951. 200-week on years subsequent thereto,

Three 1954, and November hearing filed another adjustment citing claim, in this instance jury right leg, acknowledging compensation ‍​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‍to the leg, claiming for the loss of the left that the but injury right leg present basis disability. hearing Nolan,

On before Referee James referee found: right leg disability re- “Plaintiff has a in his as a However, he sult June wage 9, 1953,

has suffered loss since November compensation and is therefore not entitled bene- fits.” apparent

It is that the referee felt governed he was his limitation of provisions of a 1943 amendment the work- tbe being § 413.14 CL act, men’s 17.188). (Stat Ann 1950Rev De- Loucks did not this award. Plaintiff “open seeking from an end” award fendants, relief compensation in the would occasion event disability-induced appeal. wages, De- of (1) did original appeal that the fendants’ for claimed judicata to of the left was res as injuries at the time of the accident all sustained subsequent by the the award and that appeal authority effect of beyond rehearing grant to board was appeal (2) that there and board; right leg within stat- notice of to the was no utory limitations. appeal presented to the board rele- No issue was obviously ap- amendment, its since to the 1943

vant plication by in defendants’ favor and by plaintiff. appeаl no cross there was compensation appeal found board The workmen’s disabling injury knee did take to that a place notice of the accident and that in 1947 injury. employer Thus, ample of such notice to appeal urged were grounds defendants 2 appeal it af- rejected by to them award. the referee’s firmed appeal further, however, went board also by granting award this modified own motion

on its periods preceding compensation November May 1951, at December 11, 1951, 1953—from January per 1, 1952, week, and from $21 rate per week. rate of 1952, at the $8.68 December undoubtedly acting deci regard under it was In appeal that an held which have of this Court sions board just limited to those and not is novo de present. party CL questions seeks which one Margenovitch 17.185); (Stat § § Rev Ann 1950 413.11 Thompson Mining v. Newport 272; Mich Co., 213 v. Loucks Batjman. Corporation, Motors Continental 320 Mich 219; Fawley v. Doehler-Jarvis Division National Lead Co., 342Mich 100.

Subsequent board decision defend- again appealed, ground. ants time with an added granted leave We limited to the contention compen- that the 1943 amendment to workmen’s recovery any period sation act served to bar year prior than 1 is more to the date of the appliсation. filing of the opinion

In its board did not deal at all with the effect of the 1943 amendment which reads: payment compensation (other “If is made than expenses) medical for further later filed with is commission, shall be awarded the commission any period year prior for the date of the which more than application.” filing of such CL (Stat § 17.188). 413.14 Ann Rev appear not, This omission does to be however, appeal appar- did, sheer inadvertence. The board ently, have it, the issue before since its order makes 1-year applied by to reference referee. limitation date the appеal may the reason be for the Whatever my language in omission, board’s view, amendment clear and, indicated, it as recovery presented in bars the fact as to situation any compensation prior to 1953. November See Briggs Manfg. Lynch Co., v. 329 Mich 168. agree findings

I with the Chief Justice of fact of the board indicate that a this was claim for further jury due to another in- original at the time as the occurred same subsequent development rather than a from accident, Morgan Lloyds original injury (cf., Builders physical 524) change 344 Mich Inc., or a condi- [June Michigan original adjudication (cf., tion after White v. Co., 352 Mich Gas 201). Consolidated presented record us to the appears Under the to to that defendants are entitled argue writer their error failure claim of as to us the 1943 amendment limitation its board apply sponte award. own modification sua referee’s affirmed, award of the should to No- prior awarded except as 12,1953. vember J., did not

Kavanagh, sit. v. GULF REFINING COMPANY. BAERLIN Equity —Laches. by rigid rules, concept governed involv- equitable Laches is an period inequitable ing over a of time as make it inaction such change of because of conditions. assert Estoppel as to of Restrictions— Enforcement 2. Covenants — Evidence. lots, of defendant’s 4 Plaintiffs, of lоt next south owners subject plaintiffs’ lot of which and were southernmost held, ‍​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‍plat not to have subdivision residential restrictions restriction, enforcing violation estopped been from such showing repeated effective remonstrances under record property. violating theretofore made of uses Waiver—Estoppel—Laches. 3. Same — respeet of re- to enforcement Waiver, estoppel, or laehes with upon placed restrictions ciprocal negative created easements depend of each ease. plat, upon the faets subdivision [2,3] ^[1] Waiver 19 Am ALR2d Am of, Jur, Equity or References Jur, estoppel Covenants, 490. assert, Conditions Points condition in Headnotes subsequent Restrictions or its §-35. breach.

Case Details

Case Name: Loucks v. Bauman

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 12, 1959

Citation: 97 N.W.2d 321

Docket Number: Docket 100, Calendar 47,631

Court Abbreviation: Mich.