Hamnett v. Born
| Decision Date | 02 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 190 |
| Parties | Hamnett, Appellant, v. Born |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 19, 1914
Appeal, No. 190, Oct. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1914, No. 457, in equity refusing an injunction in case of James H. Hamnett, Cooke Bausman, Donald C. McKee, R. J. Hayden and Mollie S. Lewis v John E. Born. Affirmed.
Bill in equity to restrain an alleged violation of a building restriction. Before REID, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
The court, on final hearing, dismissed the bill. Plaintiffs appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the decree of the court.
Richard H. Hawkins, of Dalzell, Fisher and Hawkins, with him Herriott & Morgan, for appellants.
J. McF. Carpenter, for appellee.
Before FELL, C.J., MESTREZAT, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The complainants in the bill filed are severally the owners of lots fronting on Woodwell street in the City of Pittsburgh, included in a plan of lots laid out by James H. Hamnett, one of the complainants, and duly recorded. The defendant is owner of four lots also included in said plan. All lots embraced in this plan are held subject to the following restrictions:
"That for and during a period of ten (10) years from and after the first day of November, 1911 . . . no more than one dwelling house shall be erected or maintained on each forty (40) feet of land fronting on said Woodwell street."
The bill complains that defendant is about to erect on each of his said four lots what is called a duplex dwelling house, in violation of the restriction aforesaid. The answer admits that defendant holds subject to the restriction; and further that the duplex houses he proposed to build are each designed for the occupancy of two families, under one roof, so arranged as to furnish each family with a complete and independent set of apartments, having independent and separate entrances after a common front entrance has been passed. His contention is that such building does not offend against the restriction, and he was sustained in this by the learned chancellor who accordingly dismissed the bill. The appeal brings the question before us. In Johnson v. Jones, 244 Pa. 386, the restriction provided that nothing but a church or dwelling house should be erected upon any part of the lot. What was there sought to be enjoined was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamnett v. Born
... 93 A. 505247 Pa. 418 HAMNETT et al. v. BORN. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Jan. 2, 1915. Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County. Injunction by James H. Hamnett and others against John E. Born. Prom decree refusing an injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. Argued before FELL......
-
Frank S. Alexander, the Housing of America's Families: Control, Exclusion, and Privilege
...N.J. Misc. 293, 294, 132 A. 748, 748 (N.J. Ch. 1926) ("one dwelling house" does not prohibit a two-family house). 40 See Hamnett v. Born, 247 Pa. 418, 419, 93 A. 505, 505 (1915) (restriction to "one dwelling house" permits a duplex as it is still a single structure); Johnson v. Jones, 244 P......