Harmon v. Burow

• Decision Date: 04 January 1919
• Docket Number: 58
• Citation: 263 Pa. 188,106 A. 310
• Parties: Harmon v. Burow, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

106 A. 310

263 Pa. 188

Harmon v. Burow, Appellant

No. 58

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 4, 1919

Argued October 16, 1918

Appeal, No. 58, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1917, No. 394, on bill in equity in case of William E. Harmon et al. v. Wilhelm Burow. Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction to restrain the erection of a building. Before CARNAHAN, J.

Error assigned was decree awarding injunction.

Decree affirmed.

John E Winner, with him John D. Brown, for appellant.

H. F Stambaugh, with him Mark R. Craig and Watson & Freeman, for appellees.

Before BROWN, C.J., MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON and FOX, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William E. Harmon, one of the plaintiffs below, was the owner of a certain tract of land, situated partly in the Borough of Swissvale and partly in the City of Pittsburgh, and laid the same out in building lots, in accordance with a plan, which was duly recorded. It was known as "Regent Square," and showed numerous streets and alleys and about three hundred building lots. By deed dated October 16, 1916, Harmon conveyed one of these lots to Wilhelm Burow, the appellant, a restriction in it being: "No structure of any kind shall be erected or permitted upon said premises or any part thereof, unless the plans for the same shall have been first submitted to and approved by William E. Harmon, one of the said parties of the first part, or his legal representatives. All the restrictions and covenants in this instrument contained shall continue in force until the first day of January, 1925, and no longer." Burow entered into a contract for the erection of a dwelling house, the plans for which, having been submitted to E. G. Burke, the legal representative of William E. Harmon, were disapproved by him. But, notwithstanding this, Burow proceeded to excavate for his proposed building and announced his purpose to erect it in accordance with the disapproved plans unless duly restrained and enjoined from so doing. Thereupon this bill was filed and the injunction prayed for was issued. The decree awarding it is affirmed, at appellant's costs, on the following legal conclusions of the learned court below: "First. The erection of a duplex dwelling house would not be a violation of the restriction and covenant which limit the defendant to the erection of a single building, namely, 'a detached dwelling house.' Second. The...