Johnson v. Jones

• Citation: 90 A. 649,244 Pa. 386
• Decision Date: 09 March 1914
• Docket Number: 226
• Parties: Johnson, Appellant, v. Jones
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

90 A. 649

244 Pa. 386

Johnson, Appellant, v. Jones

No. 226

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 9, 1914

Argued January 13, 1914

Appeal, No. 226, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1913, No. 1931 dismissing bill in equity for an injunction in case of W Percival Johnson v. Lewis Jones and Daniel Crawford, Jr. Affirmed.

Bill in equity to enforce a building restriction. Before DAVIS, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court on hearing on bill and answer dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was the decree of the court.

The appeal is dismissed, and the decree is affirmed.

Edwin O. Lewis, for appellant.

John G. Johnson, with him James Wilson Bayard, for appellee.

Before MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEWART:

William F. Harrity and Lewis Jones, the latter one of these appellees, were respectively owners of several large unimproved lots of ground fronting on Oxford Nassau and Sixty-ninth streets in the City of Philadelphia. With a view to having their said lands improved and developed in a way that whatever buildings or structures might be erected thereon should harmonize and tend to beautify the general neighborhood and advance values, they mutually covenanted that neither would at any time thereafter sell or convey any part of the premises severally owned by them without subjecting by deed the part sold to the following restrictions: "That nothing but a church or dwelling house, together with the out-buildings necessary for the convenience and comfort of the occupants thereof, shall ever be erected upon any part of the said land; that none of the structures so erected shall ever be used as a business place, manufactory or drinking saloon, or used for any other purpose than a dwelling house, or its necessary out-buildings or a church," &c. The restriction embraced other matters as well, but as to these no breach or intent to commit a breach is averred, and their recital is unnecessary. Lewis Jones, one of the owners, has since by articles of agreement sold to Daniel Crawford, the other appellee, a part of the premises owned by him and subject to the different restrictions. W. Percival Johnson, the appellant, is now the owner of a part of one of the large lots which had imposed on it the above restrictions. In his bill he avers that Daniel Crawford, Jr., proposes, upon taking title from Jones, to erect upon the lots so acquired by him, a series of buildings, each containing a number of separate apartments or flats, suitable for use separately for housekeeping purposes, and intended to be so used and occupied, and, complaining that the construction of such described buildings would be a violation of the restriction and greatly depreciate the value of his own property, the bill prayed for an injunction restraining Jones from conveying the premises otherwise than subject to the above restriction, and restraining Crawford from erecting upon the premises any building designed to be leased or rented as separate apartments for housekeeping purposes. The answer of the defendants simply described somewhat more in detail, the structures which Crawford proposed to erect, and denied that their erection would transgress the restriction. Nei...