Goodstein v. Huffman
Decision Date | 20 May 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 14070.,14070. |
Citation | 222 S.W.2d 259 |
Parties | GOODSTEIN et al. v. HUFFMAN et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Sarah T. Hughes, Judge.
Suit by Max N. Huffman and others against A. L. Goodstein and another to enjoin erection of a building to be occupied and used by named defendant in violation of building restrictions. From a judgment granting an injunction, named defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Sam Passman and Emil Corenbleth, both of Dallas, for appellants.
John Cain and Chaney & Davenport, all of Dallas, for appellees.
This suit was brought by Max N. Huffman and others, owners of lots in severalty fronting on Stutz Street in Maple Grove Acres, an Addition to the City of Dallas, Texas, against A. L. Goodstein and M. R. Mitchell for the purpose of preventing the erection of a building on Lot 10 and approximately 25 feet of Lot 11 in said Addition, owned by A. L. Goodstein; such building to be occupied and used by him in violation of the building restrictions allegedly in force affecting all lots in said Addition.
The Addition consists of 24 lots — Lots 1 to 12, inclusive, facing south on Stutz Street and Lots 13 to 24, inclusive, facing north on said street. All lots in the addition were originally sold with building restrictions recited in each deed of sale — that the lots were to be used for private family dwellings only, and not to be used for trade, commerce, manufacturing, merchandise, or mechanics; and not to be sold to or used by persons of African descent, other than servants occupying servants' quarters. The restriction deeds provided:
The aforesaid restrictions and covenants expired in 1945. On April 30, 1947, the Addition having theretofore been annexed to the City of Dallas; and the City Council having zoned all the property on both sides of Stutz Street for "Manufacturing — 2(m2)," in anticipation of such City zoning ordinance being applied by owners, or their assigns, to lots on Stutz Street, on September 19, 1948, all of the property owners on said street, except those owning Lots 1, 2, 12, and the west part of 11, made and entered into a further written covenant, or agreement, signed and acknowledged by each of them and duly recorded in the Deed Records of Dallas County, Texas, extending the original deed restrictions to their respective lots in consonance with those restrictions recited in their respective deeds, or deeds of their predecessors; and each declared that such restrictions shall continue to run with the title...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n
...does not offend public policy and is not illegal. Curlee v. Walker, 112 Tex. 40, 244 S.W. 497 (1922); Goodstein v. Huffman, 222 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1949, writ ref'd). At the outset, we referred alternatively to the clause as an optional acceleration provision. As such, it is sub......
-
Inwood North Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harris, s. C-5283
...with respect to their property as they see fit, provided the contracts do not contravene public policy. Goodstein v. Huffman, 222 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1949, writ ref'd). Therefore, the developer of the subdivision, as owner of all land subject to the declaration, is entitle......
-
Callahan v. Weiland
...courts have so held, and we are in accord with such holdings. See Brideau v. Grissom, 369 Mich. 661, 120 N.W.2d 829; Goodstein v. Huffman (Tax.Civ.App.), 222 S.W.2d 259. Appellant argues that the power reserved by the Tennessee Land Company, coupled with the document of 30 December 1970, as......
-
Wiley v. Schorr
...Protective Association, 332 S.W.2d 338, 343 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 1960, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Goodstein v. Huffman, 222 S.W.2d 259, 260-61 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1949, writ ref'd); Clements v. Taylor, 184 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1944, no writ). Moreover, it is not necessary tha......
-
Racially Restrictive Covenants in the State of Washington: a Primer for Practitioners
...(Ala. 1973). 154. Id. at 457. 155. Id. at 457. 156. Id. (citing Brideau v. Grissom, 120 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 1963); Goodstein v. Huffman, 222 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. App. 157. See, e.g., Hawthorne v. Realty Syndicate, Inc., 268 S.E.2d 494, 500 (N.C. 1980). 158. Id. at 494. 159. Id. at 496. 160. Id. a......