Jim Whitney Economics 495
Somath Hasina
9-19-12
Case summary brief (2-page maximum)
Recorder name:
Case name:
Citation; Date:
Court:
Somath Hasina
Sanborn v. McLean
233 Mich. 227; Submitted October 22, 1925, Decided December 22, 1925
Supreme Court of Michigan
Name (if specified) and description of litigants at the original trial court level
Plaintiff: Jessie L. Sanborn
Defendant: Christina and John McLean
Facts of the case:
1. McLeans own 35 feet of land of Lot 86 on the street corner of Collingwood Ave., city of Detroit.
2. Rear of lot has an alley, and McLeans erected a gasoline filling station there.
3. Collingwood Ave. is a residential street, and Sanborn owns adjoining land to Mcleans.
4. Gasoline station is said to violate “general plan fixed for use of all lots on the street”, all lots to be used for residential purposes only.
5. The first owner of the lots sold the set of plots with restrictions against commercial development.
6. Defendant's deed contained no restrictions.
7. The case will not be decided upon question of nuisance, but upon question of reciprocal negative easement.
Procedural history (remedy sought, prior rulings, grounds for appeal, etc., as available):
1. Case submitted October 22, 1925
2. Case decided December 22, 1925
3. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
4. Rehearing denied April 6, 1926.
Court opinion (key issues and arguments):
J. Wiest: Subdivision was planned strictly for residential use only. Reciprocal negative easements run with land, until restrictions expire, or events occur that end restriction. This principle applies to not only original owners, but all owners having notice of the principle as well. If an owner places a restriction on one lot, it can attach to other lots as well. The McLaughlins were original owners of the subdivision, and placed restrictions on specific lots to be used for residential purposes only. Lot 86 did not have any restrictions, but were attached to the lot of reciprocal negative easement. The restriction can be applied to the lot, if
Defendants had knowledge of it at the time of purchase. McLeans state that they were told their lot was unrestricted at the time of purchase. However, they had abstract showing that all lots on the subdivision were uniform. This clearly indicated that all lots were in strict accordance with a general plan.
Dissenting opinion, if any (key issues and arguments):
None.
Disposition of case:
Affirmed. The judgment is in favor of the plaintiff Sanborn. The court of Michigan enforced the principle of reciprocal negative easement upon the McLeans’ lot. As a result, the gasoline filling station needed to be torn down, and the lot returned to residential use only. Any portion of the contraction that complied with the restrictions did not have to be torn down.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
1. Course topic of the case: Property: Exercising Property Rights

2. How does the case relate to the course topic?
This case illustrates how user rights of their land may be restricted implicitly. Under the Blackstonian
Bundle of Property Rights, property right five states that land owners have the “absolute right to use and abuse the land”, however land practices can be restricted by restrictive covenants, and zoning regulations.
This case also applies the concept of “constructive knowledge”, or information that a reasonable person
“should or should have known.”
3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ?
The case of Neponsit Owner’s Association, Inc. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank is relatable to this case. In both these cases, there are restrictions or covenants placed on the land by previous owners that still remain even after new owners purchase the land. In the cases, individuals purchasing the land must be aware in some way of the rules placed on the land. However, in the case of Sanborn v. McLean, the restrictions were never specified directly on the lease, and thus the principle of reciprocal negative easement came into play, whereas in Neponsit Owner’s Association, Inc. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings
Bank the covenant being disputed was directly stated.
4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency?
Restrictions placed on properties can increase efficiency by causing property values in the area to rise, giving people the incentive to keep the subdivision for residential use only.