Burke v. Smith
1888 Mich. LEXIS 746, 37 N.W. 838, 69 Mich 380 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A structure erected on one's own property for the sole purpose of maliciously injuring a neighbor by obstructing their light and air, with no useful or beneficial purpose to the owner, constitutes an actionable nuisance that a court of equity may enjoin.
Facts:
- Burke and Smith owned adjoining residential lots in the city of Kalamazoo.
- Burke constructed two rental houses on his lot, with windows situated approximately two feet from the property line he shared with Smith.
- Following a quarrel between the neighbors, Smith erected two wooden screens, each about eleven feet high, on his property directly in front of Burke's lower windows.
- The screens were not built as a fence or for any other necessary, useful, or ornamental purpose.
- Evidence, including Smith's own statements, demonstrated that he built the screens solely out of malice with the express intent to block light from Burke's windows and otherwise injure him.
Procedural Posture:
- Burke, the complainant, filed a bill of complaint in a state trial court (court of equity) against Smith, the defendant.
- Burke sought to have the screens declared a nuisance and requested a perpetual injunction against their maintenance and renewal.
- The trial court found in favor of Burke and granted the requested relief.
- Smith, the defendant, appealed the trial court's decree to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner have the legal right to erect a useless structure on their own property for the sole and malicious purpose of injuring a neighbor by blocking light and air from their windows?
Opinions:
Majority - Morse, J.
No. A landowner cannot make a malicious use of their property for the avowed purpose of damaging a neighbor when the act provides no benefit or advantage to themselves. While a property owner can generally build on their land regardless of the effect on a neighbor's light and air, this right does not extend to building a useless structure motivated solely by malice. The court distinguished precedents that allowed such fences by noting they were based on the English doctrine of 'ancient lights,' which does not apply in Michigan. Instead, the court analogized to cases involving the malicious diversion of water, concluding that the common law maxim to use one's property so as not to injure another's prohibits the wanton infliction of damage for no reason other than spite.
Dissenting - Campbell, J.
Yes. A landowner has an absolute right to build any structure, including a screen or fence, on their own property to secure their privacy, and their motive for doing so is irrelevant. The dissent argued that the right to light and air over a neighbor's property is an easement that can only be acquired by grant, not by simply building a window. As Burke had no legal right to the light and air crossing Smith's property, Smith committed no legal wrong by obstructing it. Citing widespread authority, the dissent concluded that the proper remedy for a neighbor opening windows that invade one's privacy is to build such a barrier, and courts should not inquire into the motive behind exercising this legal right.
Dissenting - Champlin, J.
Yes. The court should adhere to the established legal principle that the motive behind an otherwise legal act is irrelevant. While acknowledging the malicious nature of the act, this dissent argued that creating a remedy for such 'spite fences' is a task for the legislature, not the judiciary. Several other states had already enacted statutes to prohibit such conduct, which is the proper avenue to change the prevailing common law rule.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception to the traditional common law rule that a property owner's motive is irrelevant when using their land. By recognizing a cause of action for a 'spite fence,' the Michigan Supreme Court adopted the 'qualified use' doctrine regarding property rights, moving away from an absolutist view. This decision places a limit on property rights, holding that they cannot be used for the sole purpose of malice. The ruling created a split in authority among U.S. states and encouraged the passage of 'spite fence' statutes in jurisdictions that continued to adhere to the traditional rule.
Unlock the full brief for Burke v. Smith