Couch v. Southern Methodist University
| Decision Date | 05 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 960-4778.) |
| Citation | 10 S.W.2d 973 |
| Parties | COUCH et al. v. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by the Southern Methodist University and others against A. B. Couch and others. An order granting a temporary injunction was affirmed (290 S. W. 256), and defendants bring error. Reversed and rendered.
Thomas, Frank, Milam & Touchstone, of Dallas, for plaintiffs in error.
Ferguson, Golden & Croley and Cockrell, McBride, O'Donnell & Hamilton, all of Dallas, for defendants in error.
This case presents a controversy over the interpretation of certain language in deeds of conveyance affecting "University Park Addition to the City of Dallas." Southern Methodist University, an incorporated educational institution, and certain individual owners of lots in the University Park addition, sought and obtained a temporary injunction against A. B. Couch and others to prevent them from the erection of business houses on property owned by them, located in the addition. Upon appeal that judgment was affirmed. 290 S. W. 256. This case was referred to section A of the commission, who reported, recommending reversal, whereupon it was withdrawn for further consideration.
There are several assignments of error in the application upon which the writ was granted, but each of them is to the effect that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the word "amend" in the provision for amendment with respect to the building restrictions hereafter noticed could not be construed to authorize the removal of said restrictions by plaintiffs in error. Since it is purely a matter of construction, we need make no further statement of the case than to set forth the nature of the restrictions imposed in the deeds to plaintiffs in error as owners of lots in the addition and the contemplated changes agreed upon by such owners to determine whether or not such changes are fairly within the express authority contained in the deeds.
The restrictions made a part of each deed of conveyance required a frontage of at least 60 feet, or 70 feet, if a corner lot, that the same should be used for private residence purposes only, and by white persons only. The character of materials and minimum cost of buildings were stipulated, a building line was established, a particular facing of the building was required, a uniform terrace for the front was made imperative, and numerous other restrictions with respect to the improvement and use of the lots were included.
The proposed changes by the owners represented in the present suit were radical, amounting, for the purposes of this opinion, we will say, to a removal of such restrictions and a change of the particular block or blocks involved from a reserved residential district.
Along with these restrictions in each deed of conveyance, there is the provision that:
"Provided, however, that at any time any of the above conditions, as far as they affect the property on (the streets involved in this controversy) may be amended by a vote of three-fourths of the owners of said streets, voting accorded to front foot holdings, each front foot counting as one vote."
The proposed amendment was adopted in the manner there provided for. Our task is merely one of construction, or perhaps, more accurately speaking, of interpretation, since the contention of both parties depends upon the meaning of the word "amend" in connection with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Deusen v. Ruth
... ... Bank, 37 S.W.2d 735; Mississippi Valley ... Trust Co. v. Southern Trust Co., 261 F. 767; Hanna ... v. Florence Iron Co., 222 N.Y. 290, 118 ... real estate involved. Couch v. Southern Methodist ... University, 10 S.W.2d 973; Louisiana Western ... ...
-
McMillan v. Iserman
...with challenges to amended deed restrictions usually involved an amendment which is less restrictive. See Couch v. Southern Methodist University, 10 S.W.2d 973 (Tex.Comm.App.1928), Valdes v. Moore, supra. In Johnson v. Three Bays Properties # 2, Inc., 159 So.2d 924 (Fla.App.1964), the Court......
-
Lassiter v. Bliss
...is governed by the intent of the parties at the time the covenant is made and will not be extended by implication. Couch v. Southern Methodist University, 10 S.W.2d 973 (Tex.Com.App.1928, holding approved); Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co., 114 Tex. 452, 270 S.W. 1014 (1925, opinion a......
-
Anderson v. United States
...is made by the grantor.Lawyers Tr. Co. v. City of Houston, 359 S.W.2d 887, 890 (Tex. 1962); accord Couch v. S. Methodist Univ., 10 S.W.2d 973, 974 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1928) ("The universal rule of construction of deeds, where there is uncertainty, is to adopt that construction most favorable ......