Clements v. Taylor, 2481.
Decision Date | 10 November 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 2481.,2481. |
Citation | 184 S.W.2d 485 |
Parties | CLEMENTS et al. v. TAYLOR et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Brown County; A. O. Newman, Judge.
Suit by W. Pat Taylor and others against M. A. Clements and others to enjoin alleged violations of restrictive covenants in a deed. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Reversed and judgment rendered for defendants.
E. J. Miller, of Brownwood, for appellants.
Wilkinson, Johnson, Griffin & Bohannon, of Brownwood, for appellees.
By a written instrument executed in 1941, recorded August 13, 1941, Paul Richardson, owner of lots 7 and 8 ( in Block 1 of the Ragsdale Addition to the )City of Brownwood, and Pauline Ragsdale Ater (reciting joinder by her husband but not signed or acknowledged by him) for herself and as attorney in fact for other heirs of Paul C. Ragsdale and wife, Maggie Baggett Ragsdale, owners of lots 1, 3, 6 and 7 ( in Block 2, and lots 10 and 11 in Block 1 of said Addition, agreed to certain restrictions upon all said property, denominating such restrictions as )"Protective Covenants." The expressed purpose of the agreement was "in order to promote the construction of desirable residences and the proper development of said property." The agreement provided: "These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them until January 1, 1966, at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten years, unless by a vote of majority of the then owners of the lots it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part."
The restrictions as set forth in the agreement were as follows:
W. Pat Taylor and others became the owners of said lots (each in severalty of a different lot) formerly owned by the heirs of Paul C. Ragsdale and wife; and M. A. Clements and wife became the owners of said lots formerly owned by Paul Richardson, all acquiring their titles subsequently to the execution and recording of said agreement and by general warranty deeds containing no restrictive covenants and making no reference to said agreement.
M. A. Clements and Oliver Allman (the latter being the father-in-law of Clements and claiming under and subject to him) had no knowledge of said agreement other than such, if any, as resulted from the recording thereof. Clements and Allman moved on to one of said lots a one room shed room garage, 14×16 feet, which Allman subsequently used "to carry on his business of repairing and upholstering furniture with small handtools only, and without employees or helpers." The work being carried on in said shed room Allman commenced construction of a 12×16 foot extension to the shed room on the Clements' lots in order to have more room to carry on his trade of furniture repairing and upholstering and intended to carry on said business just as he had been doing, which required more room.
This suit was brought by W. Pat Taylor and others, successors to the title and interests of heirs of Paul C. Ragsdale and wife in said lots, against M. A. Clements and wife (joining also said Oliver Allman as a Defendant) to enjoin said defendants from alleged violations of said restrictive covenants. It was alleged defendant had violated said restrictions (1) The prayer was in accordance with the above allegations, except it was further prayed that defendants be enjoined from using said "premises for any purpose other than homestead purposes" and for general relief.
In a non-jury trial the Court gave judgment for plaintiffs against defendants, "restraining and enjoining them and each of them from operating or permitting to be operated on said lots 7 and 8 in Block 1, Ragsdale Addition to the City of Brownwood, a furniture repairing and upholstering business and from using said lots for any purpose other than residential purposes including the right to construct such out building as is necessary to the use of said lots for residential purposes, and the business now being operated thereon by the Defendant Oliver Allman shall cease and be removed from the shed now on said premises within 20 days from date of final judgment."
The defendants have appealed.
It is believed we can best state our conclusions without separate mention of the several points, but in such way as to express our opinion on the merits of all the questions raised.
As we see it, no important question is controlled, or materially affected,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Case v. Morrisette
...64 Use restrictions on land have frequently been imposed by agreement apart from a conveyance. See, e. g., Clements v. Taylor, 184 S.W.2d 485, 487-488 (Tex. Civ.App.1944). Compare Schefer v. Ball, 53 Misc. 448, 104 N.Y.S. 1028, 1029-1032, aff'd, 120 App.Div. 880, 105 N.Y.S. 1142 (1907), 192......
-
Cook v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.
...building restrictions [Finley v. Glenn, 303 Pa. 131, 154 A. 299, 301(4, 5)], separate use-restrictive agreements [Clements v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 485, 488(5); Boyden v. Roberts, 131 Wis. 659, 111 N.W. 701, 705(2); Bradley v. Walker, 138 N.Y. 291, 33 N.E. 1079, 1080(1); Goodhue ......
-
City of Houston v. McCarthy
...Co., 114 Tex. 452, 270 S.W. 1014 (Tex.1925); Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell, 1 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Com.App.1928); Clements v. Taylor, 184 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1944). 'An easement is extinguished by a taking by eminent domain of the servient tenement, or of an interest therein, ......
-
Keith v. Seymour
...imposed by an instrument in writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds. Miller v. Babb, Tex.Com.App.1924, 263 S.W. 253; Clements v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App.1944, 184 S.W.2d 485; Pierson v. Canfield, Tex.Civ. App.1925, 272 S.W. 231; Rector v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App.1927, 1 S.W.2d 699; Allen v. Gran......