Foos v. Engle
Decision Date | 18 June 1943 |
Citation | 295 Ky. 114,174 S.W.2d 5 |
Parties | FOOS v. ENGLE et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied October 8, 1943.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; William J. Baxter, Judge.
Action by F. A. Engle and others against Lillian Foos to enjoin maintenance of a trailer camp on certain lots and erection of a bathhouse and toilet building on an adjoining lot. From so much of the judgment as enjoined erection of the bathhouse and toilet, defendant appeals; and, from so much of the judgment as denied an injunction against maintenance of the trailer camp, plaintiffs cross-appeal.
Affirmed on defendant's appeal, and reversed in part on cross-appeal.
Carl F Eversole and John Noland, both of Richmond, and O'Rear & Prewitt, of Frankfort, for appellant.
H. O Porter, of Richmond, for appellees.
The appellees, individually, are the owners of residences in what is known as Wellington Subdivision in the City of Richmond. Appellant is the owner of five lots Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46.
The object of this action, instituted by appellees, was to enjoin appellant from maintaining a "trailer camp" on Lots 44, 45, and 46, and from erecting a one-story frame structure on Lot 43 to be used as a bathhouse and toilet in connection there with. The Chancellor decided that Lots 44, 45, and 46 were not covered by the building restrictions which appellees sought to enforce, but that Lots 42 and 43 were. Accordingly, he enjoined the erection of the bathhouse and toilet on Lot 43 but declined to enjoin the use of Lots 44, 45, and 46 for a trailer camp. Appellees, by crossappeal, seek a reversal of so much of the judgment as holds that the use of Lots 44, 45, and 46 is not subject to restriction. Appellant, of course, complains only of so much of the judgment as restricts her use of Lot 43.
The questions involved are not without difficulty, and their solution requires a somewhat extended review of the facts. Prior to August 29, 1928, the property, now comprised within the Subdivision and consisting of a residence and 8.26 acres, was owned by appellant and two of her aunts, and was heavily encumbered by a mortgage to the Louisville Title Company. On that date the three owners conveyed the property in trust to the Consolidated Realty Company "for the purpose of subdividing and selling said property at public auction on such terms, conditions, and stipulations as it may deem to the best interest of all concerned", and upon the condition that there should be executed, simultaneously with the deed, a contract, whereby the Realty Company would "undertake to plat and sub-divide the herein above described property for the purpose of selling the same at Public Auction through its Auction Department at a date to be agreed upon between the parties hereto". The contract was executed as stipulated, and contained, in addition to other details, the following:
It should be explained that the property conditionally reserved from sale by the terms of the contract was designated on the plat prepared and recorded by the Realty Company as Lots 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46. It should also be noted that the deed referred to was immediately recorded, but that the contract never was. In order that conveyances might be made to the purchasers at the auction sale, the deed of trust to the Realty Company, as well as the previously executed deed of trust to the Title Company to secure its indebtedness, were rescinded, and the three joint owners again conveyed the property to the Realty Company, this time, by an absolute deed which recited: "Whereas, the property above described has been subdivided into lots, and streets and alleys created and dedicated to public use, by the second party, acting as Trustee under deed dated August 29, 1928, and recorded in the office a foresaid in Deed Book 105, page 6, and designated as Wellington Place, on a plat of the said Subdivision filed by said Consolidated Realty Company, Trustee, in the office aforesaid, dated and recorded in Plat Book 1, page 33, and said subdivision of said property, and said plat are hereby approved, confirmed and adopted by the parties hereto."
Enough was raised at the auction sale to discharge the indebtedness without selling the property conditionally reserved to the owners by the contract of August 29, 1928, and accordingly, on November 1, 1928, the Realty Company conveyed to appellant two of the six lots into which the reserved property had been platted, Lots 41 and 45, the deed reciting:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thodos v. Shirk, 49048
...N.W. 356; Johnson v. Robertson, 156 Iowa 64, 135 N.W. 585; Stevenson v. Spivey, 132 Va. 115, 110 S.E. 367, 21 A.L.R. 1276; Foos v. Engle, 295 Ky. 114, 174 S.W.2d 5, and cases cited therein; Velie v. Richardson, 126 Minn. 334, 148 N.W. 286; Deitrick v. Leadbetter, 175 Va. 170, 8 S.E.2d 276, ......
-
Bellemeade Co. v. Priddle
...circumstances surrounding the transaction and the objects which the parties had in view at the time of their creation.' Foos v. Engle, 295 Ky. 114, 174 S.W.2d 5 (1943). Also see LaVielle v. Seay, Ky., 412 S.W.2d 587 (1966). Those who contend that the restrictive covenants apply to Section V......
-
McBride v. Behrman
...v. Gales, 191 Wis. 137, 210 N.W. 407, 47 A.L.R. 956; Melson v. Ormsby, 169 Iowa 522, 151 N.W. 817; 14 Am.Jur., page 621; Foos v. Engle, (295 Ky. 114, 174 S.W.2d 5) supra; Greer v. Bornstein, 246 Ky. 286, 54 S.W.2d 927. We find in most jurisdictions courts do not feel themselves bound by the......
-
McCurdy v. Standard Realty Corp.
... ... Harvey v. Rubin, 219 Mich. 307, 189 N.W. 17." ... Our ... recent case of Foos v. Engle, 295 Ky. 114, 174 ... S.W.2d 5, is not unlike Scheuer v. Britt, supra. We again ... recognized that restrictions contained in a general ... ...