Humphrey v. Beall, 525.

• Citation: 200 S.E. 918,215 N.C. 15
• Decision Date: 01 February 1939
• Docket Number: No. 525.,525.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HUMPHREY. v. BEALL et al.

215 N.C. 15
200 S.E. 918

HUMPHREY.
v.
BEALL et al.

No. 525.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 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.

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

[200 S.E. 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 the land conveyed, and "provided further that nothing herein contained should be held to impose any restriction on the land of the grantor not hereby conveyed".

Plaintiff offered evidence tending to show these facts: The Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company, owning certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Charlotte, began to develop and sell same as high class suburban property, known as Dilworth. About the year 1922 the company caused to be prepared and registered in Map-Book 3, page 10, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Mecklenburg County a map covering and showing the plan for subdividing and laying off into blocks and lots (255 lots) a...