TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Serviss v. Board of Public Works

SERVISS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF DETROIT

Serviss v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 72 N.W. 1117 (Mich. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 17, 1897
Citations
72 N.W. 1117115 Mich. 631897 Mich. LEXIS 1186
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Municipal Corporations — Private Plats — Conformity to General Plan. Section 304 of the Detroit charter, making it the duty of the board of public works to prepare a general plan of laying out into streets and alleys all unplatted lands within the city limits, and providing that no private plan shall be permitted which does not conform thereto, justifies the board in refusing to approve a private plat, where portions of the lands platted therein would be within the limits of a public street if such street should be extended according to the general plan. Van Husan v. Heames (unreported), followed.
Summary
Certiorari to Wayne; Carpenter, J. Mandamus by Clark A. Serviss and others to compel the board of public works of the city of Detroit to approve a plat of lands. From an order denying the writ, relators bring certiorari.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The relators were denied mandamus to compel the respondent to approve a plat of certain lands in the city of Detroit, which was refused by the respondent because portions of the lands platted covered premises which would be within the limits of a public street if said street should be extended according to the plan adopted by the board under section 304 of the city charter. A copy of the provision relied on will be found in the case of Van Husan v. Heames, 91 Mich. 519 . That case was before this court twice, upon different plats. The first raised the identical question in this case, and, while unreported, the record shows the following memorandum: “Denied, * * * because relator, under the statute, cannot plat lots within the line of proposed streets. Relative to dedication of streets and alleys not passed upon.”

The order of the circuit court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1903: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Owen v. Moreland93 N.W. 1068 (Mich. 1903)

Most recent

  1. Owen v. Moreland93 N.W. 1068 (Mich. 1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Van Husan v. Heames, 52 N.W. 18 (Mich. 1892) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list