Chelsea Land & Imp. Co. v. Adams

• Decision Date: 02 February 1907
• Citation: 66 A. 180,71 N.J.E. 771
• Parties: CHELSEA LAND & IMP. CO. v. ADAMS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

66 A. 180

71 N.J.E. 771

CHELSEA LAND & IMP. CO.

v. ADAMS.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Feb. 2, 1907.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Bill by the Chelsea Land & Improvement Company against Charles R. Adams. From a decree in favor of defendant, complainant appeals. Affirmed on the opinion of the Chancery Court.

The opinion of BERGEN, V. C, is as follows:

"I will dispose of this case now. It appears that the Chelsea Beach Company purchased a large tract of land near Atlantic City, for the purposes of development, and caused it to be surveyed and divided into streets, avenues, lots, and blocks, and then began the sale of the property under certain restrictions. The important restriction to be considered here is that, in building on these lots, no building should be placed nearer the street in front than 20 feet, or nearer the side line of the lots than 5 feet. This court has, in an opinion by Vice Chancellor Reed, which has been read here, although it does not appear to have been reported, determined that the restriction as to 20 feet applied to the sides of a corner lot, as well as the front, so that a building on the corner of a lot must be placed not only 20 feet from the front, but also 20 feet from the side street in that situation, the property remaining in the Chelsea Beach Company has been transferred to the present complainant, the Chelsea Land & Improvement Company. The defendant here obtained his title through mesne conveyances from the complainant. The deeds in that chain of title contained the restriction with the exception of one deed, but even that deed made a reference to the restriction sufficient to put the purchaser on notice. So that, when the defendant bought this property, he bought it subject to the condition that he would not put on that lot a building nearer the street in front of the lots than 20 feet. It is admitted that he has violated that restriction; that he at first contemplated building a structure to be used as a bath house, in connection with a sun parlor, to be built flush with the street; that, after the proceedings in this cause were instituted, he determined to, and did, build the front of the building further back from the street, although it yet is beyond the restricted line.

"His defense is that, while his deed contained this restriction, the same restriction was incorporated in the deeds of other purchasers to the number of 150. Of that number 99 or 100 have violated the restriction contained in their deeds, and that this complainant, who is occupying substantially the position of the original company (having taken over all the property and undertaken to dispose of it subject to the same conditions), has stood by and...