Ainsworth v. Elder
Decision Date | 09 April 1932 |
Docket Number | Civil 3122 |
Parties | MRS. S. AINSWORTH, Appellant, v. MRS. MARTHA M. ELDER, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Miss S. V. Ross, for Appellant.
Messrs Cunningham, Carson & Gibbons, for Appellee.
Mrs Martha M. Elder, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against Mrs. S. Ainsworth, hereinafter called defendant seeking to enjoin defendant against constructing or maintaining a certain so-called "duplex" building, designed for and suitable for use as a residence for two families, on lot 3 of block 16, plat B, F.Q. Story addition to the city of Phoenix. A permanent injunction was issued, which reads as follows:
From such judgment this appeal is taken.
The facts in the case are not questioned, and may be stated as follows: Plaintiff herein is the owner of lot 4 in block 16, plat B of the F.Q. Story addition to the city of Phoenix, while defendant is the owner of lot 3, in block 16, of the same tract. After April, 1920, when the addition was laid out and subdivided, the then owners placed in all deeds issued to purchasers of the lots the following covenants:
Defendant commenced the erection of a so-called "duplex" on her lot, which may be defined as a building under one roof and in general exterior appearance like the ordinary single family dwellinghouse or residence, but arranged and intended for occupancy by two separate and independent families. The sole question for our consideration is whether the erection or occupancy of a building of this nature is a violation of the covenants set up in the deed aforesaid.
Most of the early decisions construing covenants restrictive of the use of land have been based on the fundamental theory that an owner of realty was entitled to deal with it as he pleased, and therefore any restrictions on its use were most rigidly and strictly construed, and indeed, the courts frequently exercised considerable ingenuity in limiting their application. As time has gone on, however, it is realized that, especially in a crowded community, the manner of use of one piece of land directly and greatly affects the value and use of adjoining and near-by premises, and the later cases incline towards giving more and more weight to the doctrine of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. For this reason it is now generally held courts should consider not only the strict and technical meaning of the particular words of restriction, but also the surrounding circumstances, the general purpose of the restrictions, and the manner in which they have been interpreted by the property owners.
The real dispute is over the meaning of the phrase "one residence," found in subdivision 6 of the covenant above set forth. Webster's New International Dictionary defines "residence" as "the house where one's home is; a dwelling-house; often, one of a superior or pretentious character."
And synonyms are given as "dwelling" or "mansion." "Dwelling-house" is defined as "a house occupied as a residence in distinction from a store, office or other building."
We think from these definitions and from our own knowledge of the common usage of the two words that they are considered as practically interchangeable, and that a decision which determines the meaning of one is in point in considering the other.
A similar question to the one in issue has been before the courts of a number of the states, and we find therein what seems to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion. The reasoning of the authorities which support the position of defendant is well expressed in the case of McMurtry v. Phillips Inv. Co., 103 Ky. 308, 40 L.R.A. 489, 45 S.W. 96. One of the conditions in the deed therein reads as follows:
"It is a condition of this deed that the property herein conveyed shall be used for residence purposes only, and that, in erecting a residence therein, it shall be built of brick or stone, and shall cost not less then seven thousand dollars and that in erecting said residence the front wall thereof shall be not less than thirty-five feet back from the sidewalk of St. James'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Andrews v. Metropolitan Bldg. Co.
...200 N.Y.S. 852; Taylor v. Lambert, 124 A. 169; Baddour v. City of Long Beach, 18 N.E.2d 18; Cady v. McDowell, 1 Lansing, 484; Ainsworth v. Elder, 9 P.2d 1007; Trainor v. Le Beck, 139 A. 16; Dietrich Leadbetter, 8 S.E.2d 276; Carr v. Trivett, 143 S.W.2d 900; Kemp v. Arnold, 113 S.W.2d 143. (......
-
Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, Phoenix
...that $4,000. A dwelling is, of course, a building suitable for residential purposes and does not include a church. See Ainsworth v. Elder, 40 Ariz. 71, 9 P.2d 1007; and 13 A.L.R.2d 1239. The only other provision restricting types of building is the clause that (the 1913 '* * * no barns, gar......
-
Cooke v. Kinkead
...in a deed in which the following restriction was imposed:"Only one residence shall be erected on any one of said lots." Ainsworth v. Elder, 40 Ariz. 71, 9 P.2d 1007. ¶21 That lot was part of a platted addition which had been laid out and platted as a choice and attractive residential distri......
-
Cooke v. Kinkead
...a deed in which the following restriction was imposed: "Only one residence shall be erected on any one of said lots." Ainsworth v. Elder (1932) 40 Ariz. 71, 9 P.2d 1007. lot was part of a platted addition which had been laid out and platted as a choice and attractive residential district. T......