Cuiper v. Wolf, 12322
| Decision Date | 19 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 12322,12322 |
| Citation | 242 S.W.2d 830 |
| Parties | CUIPER v. WOLF et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Luther E. Jones, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Sam I. Pittman and King & Nesbitt, all of Corpus Christi, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction restraining the appellant, John Cuiper, from proceeding further with the construction of a four unit apartment house on Lot 2, Block 4, of the Lexington Center Addition to the City of Corpus Christi, texas. The appellees, who secured the injunction, are owners of other lots within the subdivision and the order complained of is based upon certain restrictive covenants affecting the property which were placed of record by W. T. Pulliam, the original subdivider of the addition, and referred to in deeds conveying the respective lots to purchasers.
The two covenants mentioned in the briefs and applicable to the present dispute are as follows:
'All lots in said Lexington Center Addition shall be used for residential purposes only * * *.
'No dwelling shall be erected on less than one (1) full lot as platted on the map of said Addition * * *.'
The first covenant above mentioned does not prohibit the erection of a four unit apartment, so long as the building is used exclusively for residential purposes. Appellant has cited us to a collation of authorities in 175 A.L.R. 1199-1202, and 14 A.L.R.2d 1381-1384, which support the proposition that, 'Restrictions which, without more, merely limit the use of the property to 'residence' or 'dwelling' purposes have generally been held not to have the effect of forbidding the erection or maintenance of multiple dwellings, the courts taking the view that such terms were directed only at the type of use to be made of the property, and not at the number of families which might make such use.' 14 A.L.R.2d 1381.
It, however, appears that the trial judge in granting the injunction relied primarily upon the proscription against erecting a dwelling upon less than one full lot. The case turns upon the meaning of the word, 'dwelling' as used in the covenant. Does it comprehend a single unit or a number of units contained within one structure?
Appellant suggests that a correct definition of 'dwelling' is, 'A building used for human habitation.' Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary. A dwelling is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary as a 'habitation;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munson v. Milton
...(Tex.App.--Austin 1983, no writ); Stephenson v. Perlitz, 537 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Cuiper v. Wolf, 242 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1951, no writ). The covenant at issue here, however, contains an additional sentence that clarifies t......
-
Witte v. Sebastian
...193 S.W.2d 233; Braswell v. Woods, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 253; Benbow v. Boney, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 438; Cuiper v. Wolf, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 830. The record further reveals that it was not the custom of the City Planning Commission of Dallas to give notice to adjacent property o......