Cawthon v. Anderson, 18724
| Decision Date | 11 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18724,18724 |
| Parties | Fred CAWTHON et al. v. Claud E. ANDERSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
H. W. Gaines, Lavonia, George L. Goode, Toccoa, Carter Goode, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Frank C. Gross, and Lamar N. Smith, Toccoa, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Claud E. Anderson and E. C. Addy, of Stephens County, filed a petition against Fred Cawthon and Robert Holbrook, of Franklin County, alleging substantially: that in 1940 Ola B. West and O. K. Sellers owned a tract of land in Stephens County, which O. K. Sellers subdivided into lots and caused plats to be made and duly recorded, in which all of the land, with the exception of lots 4 and 5 in block A and 350 feet across the highway from lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, in block A, was restricted for residential purposes, and that in conveying the lots in said subdivision O. K. Sellers provided in all the deeds executed by him that 'no commercial building to be erected thereon, same conveyed for residential purposes'; that Claud E. Anderson, on October 15, 1951, purchased lots 7 and 8 in block A of said subdivision, and is now the owner of said lots; that E. C. Addy, on August 18, 1951, purchased lot 38 of said subdivision, and is now the owner of said lot; that on October 4, 1951, Fred Cawthon purchased lots 9 and 10, in block F, in said subdivision, from D. W. Payne, and his deed of conveyance bears the restrictions, 'No commercial buildings to be erected thereon, same conveyed for residential purposes'; that Anderson, Addy, and Cawthon hold their respective lots in said subdivision under the common grantors, Ola B. West and O. K. Sellers; and that notwithstanding the restrictions placed on all of the lots, with the aforesaid exceptions, and notwithstanding the fact that Cawthon's deed to lots 9 and 10 in block F specifically provides that no commercial buildings shall be erected on said lots, defendants Fred Cawthon and Robert Holbrook are erecting or causing to be erected on said lots 9 and 10 a filling station for the sale of grasoline, oil, and kindred products to the general public, in violation of the rights of Anderson and Addy, owners of residential lots in said subdivision, and in violation of the rights of others holding residential lots in said subdivision. The prayers of the petition were for process, and 'that defendant be temporarily restrained and enjoined from constructing said filling station on said lots and from using said lots as a filling station for the sale of gasoline and oil and kindred products and that after such hearing as the court may direct, said defendant be permanently enjoined and restrained from erecting said filling station on said lots as aforesaid.' The petition was filed on March 17, 1954, and an answer was filed by defendant Cawthon. The case was heard on April 24, 1954, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roth v. Connor
...omitted.) Grove Lakes Subdivision v. Hollingsworth, 218 Ga. 443, 444-445, 128 S.E.2d 499 (1962). See also Cawthon v. Anderson, 211 Ga. 77, 78(1), 84 S.E.2d 66 (1954); Spencer v. Poole, supra at 156(1), 60 S.E.2d 371. Thus, no express restrictive covenant for Phase I as to construction exist......
-
Bowman v. WALNUT MTN. PROP. OWNERS ASSOC.
...covenants running with the land as he may impose, provided that such covenants are not contrary to public policy. Cawthon v. Anderson, 211 Ga. 77, 78(1), 84 S.E.2d 66 (1954). Thus, restriction of use of the land conveyed may burden the land through the deed of title. Winslette v. Keeler, 22......
-
Lanier v. Burnette
...is entitled to the same remedy for its enforcement as was [the] grantor. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cawthon v. Anderson, 211 Ga. 77, 78(1), 84 S.E.2d 66 (1954). See also Grove Lakes Subdivision v. Hollingsworth, 218 Ga. 443, 444, 128 S.E.2d 499 The fact that other or different rest......
-
West Alameda Heights Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of County Com'rs of Jefferson County
...the restrictions. Robertson v. Nichols, 92 Cal.App.2d 201, 206 P.2d 898; Batman v. Creighton, 101 So.2d 587 (Fla.App.); Cawthon v. Anderson, 211 Ga. 77, 84 S.E.2d 66; Redfern Lawns Civic Ass'n, et al. v. Currie Pontiac Co., 328 Mich. 463, 44 N.W.2d 8; Weinstein v. Swartz, 3 N.J. 80, 68 A.2d......