Chiles v. Fuchs
Decision Date | 09 June 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 42953,No. 2,42953,2 |
Citation | 363 Mo. 114,249 S.W.2d 454 |
Parties | CHILES et al. v. FUCHS et al |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Joseph Boxerman, St. Louis, Joseph Nessenfeld, St. Louis, of counsel, for appellants.
C. Kenneth Thies, St. Louis, for respondents.
In the circuit court of the city of St. Louis the appellants filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment to ascertain if certain instruments impose any restrictions upon the use of appellants' property located on Hampton Avenue in Southwest Park, a subdivision in the city of St. Louis. All of the owners of the lots in this subdivision facing on Hamption Avenue were made defendants and as a representative class of the several hundred lot owners in this subdivision. None of the defendants answered except the Phillips Petroleum Company. It filed an answer disclaiming any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with respect to appellants' claim and disclaimed any interest in the subject matter of the suit. After a hearing at which none of the respondents were represented, the trial court entered a judgment finding the appellants were not entitled to the relief prayed and dismissed their petition.
At the time this tract of land was platted as a subdivision it was owned by Robert E. Rose. The plat of this subdivision was filed in the office of recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis on March 27, 1925. This subdivision is bounded on the east by Hampton Avenue, on the west by Watson Road, on the north by Marquette and on the south by Pernod Avenue. There are 9 blocks in this subdivision and 342 lots. Each block is so laid out that the longer side thereof runs east and west. The west side of blocks 1, 2 and 3 face on Watson Road, and the east side of blocks 7, 8 and 9 fact on Hampton Avenue. All of the lots in the subdivision with the exception of those immediately abutting Hampton Avenue and Watson Road are laid out so they run north and south. With respect to these lots there is marked on the plat a broken line 20 feet back of the street line. This broken line is marked on the plat '20' Building Line.'
In each of the blocks facing on both Watson Road and Hampton Avenue there are 7 lots. 115 feet west of Hampton Avenue there is an alley that separates the property from the remaining portion of those blocks. The lots east of this alley are so laid out that they run east and west and front on Hampton Avenue. Lots 1 to 7 inclusive of block 7, and lots 1 and 2 of block 8 are owned by appellants.
The plat of this subdivision contains no language which refers to the broken lines marked 'building line' or any other restrictions.
On October 8, 1925 there was filed in the office of the recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis an instrument executed by Robert E. Rose. By its terms there were to be restrictions on the property of this subdivision. Appellants and respondents acquired title to their property through Rose.
This restrictive instrument reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.
...Restatement of the Law of Property, Vol. V, Section 534, p. 3205; 14 Am.Jur., Covenants, Etc., Section 20, p. 496.7 Chiles v. Fuchs, 363 Mo. 114, 249 S.W.2d 454, 456(4); Missouri State Oil Co. v. Fuse, 360 Mo. 1022, 232 S.W.2d 501, 506(4); Zinn v. Sidler, 268 Mo. 680, 187 S.W. 1172, 1174, L......
-
Hanna v. Nowell
...are automatically excepted might see 14 Am.Jur., Covenants and Conditions, sec. 275, p. 639; 1 A.L.R. annotation 329.3 Chiles v. Fuchs, 363 Mo. 114, 249 S.W.2d 454; Gieseke v. Doyel, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 189; Breadon v. Paugh, 330 Mo. 127, 48 S.W.2d 853; Zinn v. Sidler, 268 Mo. 680, 187 S.W.......
-
Shepherd v. State ex rel. State Highway Commission
... ... * * * ' Chiles v. Fuchs, 363 Mo. 114, 249 S.W.2d 454, 456(4--5); Mathews Real Estate Co. v. National Printing & Engraving Co., 330 Mo. 190, 48 S.W.2d 911, ... ...
-
Campbell v. Stout
...restrictions upon the use of land must either be expressly stated or most clearly inferable from a writing, Chiles v. Fuchs, 363 Mo. 114, 118-119, 249 S.W.2d 454, 456-457 (2) (4,5); Zinn v. Sidler, 268 Mo. 680, 688-689, 187 S.W. 1172, 1174, L.R.A.1917A 455, and any ambiguity must be resolve......