Telegram-herald., 1889-07-31


me- L41alcrs. Muller. 0fDsnaeiI Hoasefs.
saunders. Stern. stokes. sts5nias. elgY2-E.
Igrner. Ierex-5
Asss-Ssae.
Ths p4Et xsisx rae commitfse ~possr %
acs AS lost b. Eae ioilsEag sots.
fe-s-ald- -La14lsEe. Al-sr. o'Donae1.
elokes. ste1olas-5.
Nass-Aia- Aaaersaa. Baldsia. Crss le En-
ner. Rodgers. >4Ilaasrs. stela. ,9reai. otrs2er.
Turner. Ierex-iL
1aass E.sl8s. Aiea JAS -. ls5s.
To me Honorable tAs haysf aaa ganmon
lounell sf tie CiEg 0l sral4 hagidss
fIrafiemsa-ia regard 60 tle eoMM4nie@~
loa 81 tls 1sa. 0s1g. ~. t1a5er. relative %
tne eIde4iaE 81 ths F8aaeag o. Canal street
ts elttlax n 80 l1et "a tne sldeS4ik s1 S4ea
SIDE lheFssL sh4en communication vas pre-
seated - pour holar4Die 1oay 81 IS rekui4r
ssssioa JAZZ =. l,.s pages lIl 4ad - oi Fo-f
prlatsd proceed assI. sla a.so Ia regard % tne
Fsmoastra1ce &c N IL Lam8fe4Ix 4a1 line
0raer pT9EerrS salers ca SID tana2 street.
demonstrating against the said PROPOSED
widening 81 sad Canal street. presented %
solr honorable 1aay aE IS regular s-as.oa
JAR e lses page - 81 Fe4r griated proceed
iuxs. sAien caMnla lieall94s Nere referred 20
the COMMITTEES ga streets snd Jhs cily At
toraey. / beg rasr % report t1sI have care
fullg examined iat0 tns legal questions ia
vglved aad aass reached ths tollo~ilg con
ciasions alter "a examination o. tne zUfhori-
ties Eirsg-Ihat tae right 81 ihe iot propri--
Cor upon streets % a4ze openIags Ia the side
Nalfs. la oflaf 20 95taln "a entrance into ths
basement 9r ee'lar. aa1 also lB- risnt 20
nats 0penlass uldsr me sidewalks % give
additional cslzr rsoaI. rests entirety upoa
s4dsraaee GA lilr part "a she paole that u -
oot a vested risht. th4t TO recognize surl a
rikat a. al absolute vested rlgnt would oe in-
consistent sllh tas public rsals. ~hlch are
paramount O. The whole street and 10 al uses
ald scrvitlde Te4 aired. of which may Be re-
auired Tor co.. public beaenL and convenience.
S-cond-rhs1 Z. Ia the opinlon Of me public
municipal a4Ihorltles having charge Of the
streets % the eily aaa improvements thereof,
10 would be DlDlc beAe1t AID necessary
public improvement to -iYr wider roadway
% gl4ea street aat % contract - that ex-
lrnr the sideN4.ks on rlLher side thereof. they
would b. authorized - % DO. notwithstanding
that the adjoining lot owners had heretofore
constructed their area walls sncn manner
fhst such aarrowiag 20 the sidewalks would
rompe. the total or partial reconstruction OK
s-en area nails
judge Dl.oa ia bis work on municipal cor
porafl0ns. section oa9. uses The following
language. IN naay cl-les lot proprietors upon
streets are permitted % make openings Ia the
sidewalks Ia order 90 Obtain a. entrance into
tho basement 0r cellar and also % make
openings under The Sidewalk 20 give
additional cellar room. IL the Zee 81
the street - Ia ths mlniei paiitS In trust for
the public uses. as &c frequenfly Is. it extends
% the whole street including the Sidewalk
lsuch Is the ease Ia Michigan. and the adIoin-
i1g ,0t owner would. 10 seems clear have no
right. as against the public, or the municipality
charged ~itn thc control OF the streets 20 ap-
To "a
right would oe Inconsistent with the public
rights. which are paramount 70 the whole
streets. and % al uses aad servitudes required.
or what may BE- required. for the public benefit
and convenience. hut such uses may Dc per-
mtted oy the Municipality when they DO not
Interfere with the public Interests. and are
authorized oy their charters. II the fee Of the
street isln me adjoining owner. as 10 frequent
iyis. the question OF the rigntfuiness OF such
a use Of ths sidewalk may not be 50 plain. and
vt. even m this ease. the public
right must b paramount 10 indt
vtuai interests. and the rights Of the
public are not limited % a mere right Of way.
bar exteot. a. sr have shown. 20 al beneficial
uses. as the public good or convenience may
from time % time require. The use Of the
streets for sewers. tllueling. public cisterns.
gas pipes. water pipes. and other improve
ments. i-ht te seriously affected by the
recognition 90 a right IN the a5utter 10 make az
pleasure openings ln. or even under the side
walk OF street. The correct view would seem
% Be that al rights ~ this character must
come from legislative declaration or municipal
license. express or implied from general
usage"
The foregoing doctrine. as laid down by
JudSe Dillon. appears 60 De supported by al
tne aathoiiiies. The supreme Court OF iii
rols. IN the case q Nelson vs. Godfrey 9th
III - and -9 uses the following language
I'VE are not preplre4 10 admit that the de-
fendaut could. by reason a. his ownership Of
the ad Joining property. claim che AZ Solate right
% take up the sIdsua's and extend lis coal eel
llr under DC. tgt as such privilege : d great
convenience in q cifv. and may. with proper
cage. hs exercised eirh little or no inconven-
isnce O. tae pu3Ac. we think that the author
iry % make slch cellars may be implied ln The
absence 90 any action Of the corporate author
tries to Che contrary. they having been aware
o. the progress of she work.
Plr while We infer license % use a part 81
the public street. 10 Is on condition that the
person doiug So shall use more than ord nary
care anf expedition 10 fhe prosecution Of the
work. either the public nor other indlvit
uais derive ans possible advantage from such
ase % the Sidewalk. bur it is solely
for the benefit of The person thus using
ir. and be mlsr see 20 if thar he does not en-
danger che safety Of others and that he in
coumofes he punIir aslittle as possible
In the case no FISHER vs. III rSeil 3isf. Mich.
7. mn action or damages caused by a hole in
the Sidewalk. fhc Supreme Court recognizes
the doctrine fo be tasr excavations property
and safety constructed under the public streets
~ cities for che conveuieuce of the owners OF
premises adjoining. are NOT unlawful and are
noe liable to be treated ss nuIsances if kept I'm
repair anf f1e street is nor Interrupted for an
unreasonable len1rh of time. etc. htt such
user. however. is vhIect ~ the paramount
ri-hts ~ enc cilr in -srf ro It's streets. The
exact nature snt exte1r 20 me uublirS tItie %
streets created bv dedication. does NOT appear
20 have been fully determined ~ The decisions
in fhis state bnr Ir hs~ been t'ferr ned In
Michigan that fae t.fle vested in a connfy IS
surh a. ~ en1hif fhs vrhIr authorifles to
devote che lands fo AT frs putic rses con
teunisfet i1 maxim rsr plan. ard 20 charge
tfrm with cor~ssponfin- orii -afions whether
tfe flfle - Zee snfpir. a conditional fee ~ a
perpetual easement fs nos clear Wsvre
County vs Miller $751; Mich ca. ~Bnf
the dedication of land q, the purpose Of
village ana city streets unst pa understood ~
uaata ant accepted win che exception that 81
nav 30 reaeirrd Tor other purposes shan those
81 passage and travel merely art rhsf unisr
fhe direction ard centre. sf rse puhiic author
ftIas it ts subject to he appropriated to al tbe
uSrs fa which riH1-s an.I e.rv streets are usu-
az Devoted as faa wants ar convenience a
me nun.Ic may render na.l s,irv 'r Important. r
warrrr "a Granf Hsttr Nirh.-A -And
fsa -ifv ard rflfze autborirss may remove
fne sofl In 'FRONT.' of me iof If ore proprietor ro
r-sie other pcr-lors ~ -re street. 6riswold
" rsv -ifr Efh. Nich. AZ