Briggs v. Hendricks
| Decision Date | 14 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11809.,11809. |
| Citation | 197 S.W.2d 511 |
| Parties | BRIGGS et al. v. HENDRICKS et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Ben F. Wilson, Judge.
Suit by Homer Briggs and others against Harry H. Hendricks and another to enjoin the named defendant from practicing medicine in residence district. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
S. P. Wunsch, of Houston, for appellants.
J. Dixie Smith and Peter S. Solito, both of Houston, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final judgment refusing appellants an injunction to restrain appellee, Dr. Harry H. Henricks, from engaging in the practice of medicine in his home, which is located in the Houston Country Club Place Addition to the City of Houston; such practice of medicine was alleged to be a violation of the restrictions subject to which appellee, Dr. Hendricks, and his wife purchased their home. The price paid by them for their said home was $8,500. Mrs. Hendricks was a party below, and is a party to this appeal, but it is unnecessary to refer to her hereafter as such; so Dr. Hendricks will hereafter be referred to as though he were the sole appellee.
Appellants and appellee are lot owners in the aforesaid addition, and their lots — as well as all other lots in the addition — were purchased subject to the same restrictions. Appellants' petition is one in common form alleging a violation of the restrictions which restrict lots in an additions, which is located in a city, to use for residential purposes only. The violation alleged against appellee was to the effect that he used his residence to engage in the practice of medicine; that he received his patients there; that he had no other office for the practice of medicine, and that he displayed a large sign attached to his home, on which his name, together with the fact that he specialized in the treatment of rectal diseases, were shown.
Appellee pled various special exceptions (which are not shown to have been called to the court's attention), together with a general denial.
The court, trying the case without a jury, rendered judgment refusing the injunction prayed for, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted. No conclusions of fact or law were requested, and none were filed.
Appellants predicate their appeal upon four points, which are in substance as follows:
(1) That the relevant restrictions provide for a Business Center in which but one physician's office was permitted to be maintained, and that appellee is not conducting his practice of medicine in said Business Center, but in his residence in violation of the covenants restricting the lot in question to residential use only.
(2) That the purchase of appellee's residence, subject to the restrictions in question, constituted a binding acceptance of said restrictions by appellee, and appellants are entitled to enforce said restrictions by injunction without being required to show pecuniary damages.
(3) That the evidence failed to show any other violations of these restrictions acquiesced in by appellants for such length of time as to estop them from enforcing a stop to the violation here complained of.
(4) That the covenant restricting appellee's lot to residential use was shown by the undisputed evidence to have been violated in the respect alleged. And the provision in said covenant that all lots, other than such as are located in the Business Center, are for residential use only is further clarified by this provision: "No structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any residential building plot other than one detached, one family dwelling * * * and other outbuildings incidental to the residential use only of the plot."
The evidence showed that the lots in the addition were sold subject to the restrictions referred to in the deed conveying the lot in question to appellee's wife; that said restrictions provided, among other things, for a Business Center, and provided that only one physician's office should be maintained in the Business Center. Specifically the restrictions showed:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...place of abode, and in which no business is carried on, is devoted to a ‘residential use’ so long as such use continues." Briggs v. Hendricks , 197 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1946, no writ), quoted in Vaccaro v. Rougeou , 397 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1965, writ......
-
Inwood North Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Meier
...doors was not specifically prohibited by the restrictions, they were not in violation of them. This is so, they say, citing Briggs v. Hendricks, 197 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.Civ.App.1946, no writ), and Gilbert v. Shenandoah Valley Improvement Association, 592 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Civ.App.1979, no writ), b......
-
Reed v. Williamson, 34065
...as a prohibition against the use of the property for any purposes other than for residential purposes.' The court in Briggs v. Hendricks, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 511, 513, considered a restriction that all lots in the tract should be known and described as residential lots except the porti......
-
Farmer v. Thompson
...the violations sought to be restrained. Arrington v. Cleveland, supra; Faubian v. Busch, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 361; Briggs v. Hendricks, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 511; Stewart v. Welsh, 142 Tex. 314, 178 S.W.2d 506; Green v. Gerner, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 615; Spencer v. Maverick, supra; ......