## Facts

- Detroit Base-Ball Club operated Recreation Park in Detroit, enclosed the grounds with a high fence, and charged admission to attend games.
- John Deppert owned residential property adjoining the park; his barn roof overlooked the ball field.
- Deppert constructed a rooftop viewing stand on his barn, from which multiple spectators could watch games without entering the park.
- The club alleged Deppert’s stand diverted spectators from paying park admission and sought a permanent injunction barring Deppert from using his property for that purpose.
- Deppert asserted that the club’s fence and game activity had impaired his property and quiet enjoyment, and he claimed his structure was safe and lawful; he also asserted he did not charge “admission” but sold refreshments to those who watched.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the club’s bill; the club appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether enclosing a ballpark and charging admission gives the club a legal or equitable right to stop neighboring landowners from allowing others to view games from the neighbors’ property.
2. Whether the club was entitled to an injunction given the nature of the asserted right, alleged harm, and the availability of legal remedies.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decree dismissing the bill and denying an injunction.
- The court held the club had no right to control Deppert’s lawful use of his own property, even if spectators could view the games from there and Deppert sold refreshments.
- The court found no sufficient basis for equitable relief because the club showed no invasion of a legally protected interest and did not establish non-speculative harm warranting an injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Enclosing premises and charging admission creates the right to exclude and charge entrants, but does not create a property right in preventing observation from adjoining land lawfully used by its owner.
- A neighbor’s lawful use of property that incidentally reduces another’s profits is not, without more (e.g., trespass, nuisance, or other wrong), an actionable invasion supporting injunctive relief.
- Equity will not enjoin conduct absent a cognizable right needing protection and a showing that equitable relief is justified under the circumstances; solvency and the availability of damages weigh against injunction.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin Deppert’s rooftop viewing stand because the baseball club’s gate-revenue interest did not translate into a legal right to control adjacent property, and the club failed to show a tortious invasion or other equitable ground to restrict Deppert’s lawful use of his land.


Detroit Base-Ball Club v. Deppert, 27 N.W. 856 (Mich. 1886)