200 S.E. 918 (N.C. 1939), 525, Humphrey v. Beall

Docket Nº:525.
Citation:200 S.E. 918, 215 N.C. 15
Opinion Judge:WINBORNE, Justice.
Party Name:HUMPHREY v. BEALL et al.
Attorney:H. L. Taylor, of Charlotte, for appellants. Stancill & Davis and Hunter Jones, all of Charlotte, for appellee.
Case Date:February 01, 1939
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 918

200 S.E. 918 (N.C. 1939)

215 N.C. 15

HUMPHREY

v.

BEALL et al.

No. 525.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 1, 1939

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; S. J. Ervin, Jr., Special Judge.

Action by Dr. Virginia Humphrey against Mary Sue Beall and another to enjoin defendants from erecting and maintaining a dry cleaning plant and laundry upon a lot adjacent to residence lot of the plaintiff in alleged violation of restrictive covenant in deed. From an adverse judgment, the defendants appeal.

Reversed.

Generally, right of grantees from common grantor to enforce inter se restrictive covenants entered into by each with common grantor is confined to cases where there is proof of general plan or scheme for improvement of property and its consequent benefit, and the covenants have been entered into as part of general plan with reference to which grantees have purchased land.

Provision of deed containing covenant requiring lot to be used for residential purposes, that restriction might be changed, and that grantor might sell other lots without restriction, refuted idea of general plan for residential purposes to be exacted alike from all purchasers for benefit of each purchaser, and hence purchaser who constructed residence could not enforce covenant against purchaser of another lot of same subdivision, who allegedly contemplated violation of restrictive covenant.

Civil action to enjoin defendants from erecting and maintaining a dry cleaning plant and laundry upon lot adjacent to residence lot of plaintiff in alleged violation of restrictive covenants inserted in deeds pursuant to an alleged general plan for and development of a subdivision of an area of land known as Dilworth in the City of Charlotte.

Plaintiff owns lot No. 6 and defendants owned the adjoining or south half of lot No. 7 in Block 35 in a subdivision of land covered by map recorded in Map Book 3 at page 10 in the office of Register of Deeds of Mecklenburg County, and being a portion of the area known as Dilworth. Plaintiff and defendants, respectively, claim title through mesne conveyances from a common source, Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company, which conveyed the title to both lot No. 6 and the said one half of lot No. 7 in said block, by deed dated 4 November, 1925, to B. F. Wellons which was made subject to building restrictions, among others, that the lots should be used for residential purposes only, in dwellings to cost not less than $12,000, which restrictions should be held to run with and

Page 919

bind the lands to be conveyed and all subsequent owners and occupants thereof, provided, however, that any of such restrictions might be changed at any time and in any manner by and with the mutual written consent of the grantor or its successors, and the owner or owners for the time being of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP