Case ID: mich-app_13/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HERNDON v. JONES.
    1. Judgment — Summary Judgment — Lot Restrictions — Setback.
    Summary judgment for defendants in action to compel defendants to construct dwelling 50 feet from front lot line rather • than at a setback greater than 50 feet held, proper where 50-foot front lot line restriction was a minimum restriction.
    2. Costs — No Brief.
    No costs are awarded on appeal where prevailing party files no ■ brief. '
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1] 41 Am Jur, Pleading § 340 et seq.
    
    [2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1010.
    Appeal from Macomb, Noe (Alton H.), J.
    Submitted Division 2 October 10, 1968, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 3,910.)
    Decided October 21, 1968.
    Complaint by Quitmon Herndon and Helen D. Herndon against Marion E. Jones and Vivian Jones for injunction to compel compliance with subdivision lot restrictions. Summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Gruenburg, Robinson & Bogus, for plaintiffs.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs filed complaint for an injunction to restrain defendants from constructing a bouse more than 50 feet from tbe front lot line in a subdivision wbicb bad a 50-foot front lot line restriction. Tbe trial judge granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis the 50-foot restriction was a minimum restriction. Plaintiffs appeal.

Summary judgment was proper.

Affirmed but without costs.

Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Vandeb Wal, JJ., concurred.