Ivey v. Blythe
| Decision Date | 11 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 459.) |
| Citation | 138 S.E. 2 |
| Parties | IVEY. v. BLYTHE et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Finley, Judge.
Action by J. B. Ivey against Joe L. Blythe and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The defendants entered into a written contract with the plaintiff to purchase lot No. 10 of square 5, of Piedmont Park, in the city of Charlotte. On May 5, 1900, Abbott, Stephens, and Coleman conveyed, without restriction, a certain tract of land containing 86 acres, lying and being near the city of Charlotte, to a corporation known as the Piedmont Realty Company. The land was subdivided into convenient lots, and these lots were sold to various purchasers. On October 20, 1900, the Piedmont Realty Company conveyed to F. C. Abbott certain lots, including the lot in controversy. The deed from tie Piedmont Realty Company to said Abbott contained the following restriction:
"It being further understood and agreed that the lots fronting on Central avenue and Seventh street are to be used for residential property only, and that no house costing less than $1,500 shall be erected on Central avenue, and no house costing less than $1,000 shall be erected on Seventh street."
The lot in controversy fronts on Central avenue.
On November 18, 1905, Abbott reconveyed the lot in controversy, without restriction, to the Piedmont Realty Company. After describing the land, the deed contained this clause:
"Being the same lot No. 10, square 5, conveyed by the Piedmont Realty Company to F. C. Abbott by deed, and recorded in the office of the register of deeds for Mecklenburg county, in Book 150, p. 237."
Thereafter on March 6, 1908, the Piedmont Realty Co. conveyed the lot in controversy to the plaintiff, without restriction, but the following clause appears in the deed of plaintiff:
"Being the same lot No. 10, square 5, conveyed by the Piedmont Realty Company to F. C. Abbott, by deed recorded in the office of the register of deeds for Mecklenburg county in Book 150, p. 237."
It appears, further, that the Piedmont Realty Company executed 58 original conveyances and 14 secondary conveyances. Fifty-seven of the original conveyances conveyed 1291/2 lots. The remaining original deed con-1361/2 lots. Of the said 1291/2 lots the Piedmont Realty Company conveyed 1211/2 lots, subject to certain restrictions, and 7 of said 1291/2 lots were conveyed without restriction. The 1361/2 lots left were conveyed to F. C. Abbott, without restriction.
The plaintiff, in pursuance of the contract of sale between him and the defendants, ten-dered deed for said lot No. 10, square 5, but the defendants refused to accept the deed upon the ground that the plaintiff could not convey a title free of restrictions. The following judgment was rendered:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Elmore
...96, 150 S.E. 702; Thomas v. Rogers, 191 N.C. 736, 133 S.E. 18; Snyder v. Heath, 185 N.C. 362, 117 S.E. 294. In the case of Ivey v. Blythe, 193 N.C. 705, 138 S.E. 2, the plaintiff contracted to sell and the defendants to purchase Lot No. 10 of Square 5 of Piedmont Park in the City of Charlot......
-
Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, Phoenix
...N.J.Eq. 493, 46 Atl. 623; Conger v. Railway, 120 N.Y. 29, 23 N.E. 983; 11 Cyc. 1077.' (128 N.W. at page 301.) See, also, Ivey v. Blythe, 193 N.C. 705, 138 S.E. 2, 3, where the court '* * * A restriction of the free enjoyment and use of property should be created in plain and express terms; ......
-
Maples v. Horton
...for residential purposes. Phillips v. Wearn, supra; Humphrey v. Beall, supra; DeLaney v. Hart, 198 N.C. 96, 150 S.E. 702; Ivey v. Blythe, 193 N.C. 705, 138 S.E. 2; Davis v. Robinson, 189 N.C. 589, 127 S.E. 697; Snyder v. Heath, 185 N.C. 362, 117 S.E. The decision in the case of Starmount Co......
-
Starmount Co. v. Greensboro Memorial Park, 674
...A restriction of the enjoyment of property must be created in express terms, or by plain and unmistakable implication. Ivey v. Blythe, 193 N.C. 705, 138 S.E. 2. When the deed under scrutiny is read aright, it does these two things in express terms: First, it limits the use of the four acre ......