Jones v. Haines, Hodges & Jones Bldg. & Development Co.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 23835,23835 |
| Citation | 371 S.W.2d 342 |
| Parties | James Alexander JONES and Joan Marie Jones, Respondents, v. HAINES, HODGES & JONES BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT CO., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John F. Thice and Gilbert R. Titus, Independence, for appellant.
Reginald A. Smith, Independence, for respondents.
Appellant-defendant, Haines, Hodges & Jones Building and Development Company, has appealed from an adverse judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County at Independence, declaring the rights of the parties under a restrictive covenant and permanently enjoining a threatened violation. The sole contention of error is that the trial court misconstrued one of the covenant restrictions.
In 1951 John Herbert Whitehead and his wife placed of record a plat of Whitehead Heights, a subdivision in Jackson County, Missouri. This subdivision consists of 12 lots, all of which are 200 feet deep and face north along 39th Street. Lot 1 is 120 feet wide and Lot 12 is 117.25 feet wide. Each of the other ten lots is 100 feet wide. There is a building setback line 50 feet from the south edge of 39th Street and a utility easement over the south 10 feet on all 12 lots.
In 1952 the Whiteheads placed of record certain restrictions to run with the land. The one here in controversy reads:
'No residential structure shall be erected or placed on any building plot, which plot has an area of less than 20,000 square feet or a width of less than 100 feet at the front building setback line.' (Italics ours.)
In 1957 plaintiffs, James Alexander Jones and Joan Marie Jones, acquired ownership of Lot 11 subject to restrictions of record. At that time ranch type homes had been erected on 8 of the 12 lots, and plaintiffs then built and occupied a similar home on Lot 11. Shortly thereafter a ranch type home was built on another of the lots, leaving only two lots, including Lot 12, vacant.
On March 30, 1959, the Whiteheads conveyed to defendant ownership of Lot 12 subject to restrictions of record. On June 4, 1959, defendant placed of record a plat including resubdividing Lot 12 by dividing that lot into two plots, each 100 feet north and south by 117.25 feet east and west and by changing a part of the building setback line on the west side and adding a 15 foot sewer easement. Defendant informed plaintiffs it intended to build two houses on Lot 12.
Plaintiffs filed suit asking for a declaratory judgment, declaring the restrictive covenant valid and seeking an injunction of the proposed house construction. The trial court ruled favorably to plaintiff, declared the proposed buildings being built on a plot of less than 20,000 square feet to be in violation of the restrictive covenant and issued the requested injunction. This appeal followed.
Defendant contends the word 'or' used in the restrictive covenant is used in the disjunctive and as so used permits the owner of a lot 'to utilize the property in one of two ways, either by building a house on one of the lots if it had 20,000 square feet 'or' if there was not 20,000 square feet, then the lot would have to be 100 feet wide at the front building setback line.' Plaintiff and the trial court construe the covenant to mean that any of the lots to be built on must meet both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herrick Motor Co. v. Fischer Oldsmobile Co.
...from the four corners of the instrument (e.g., Garrett v. Damron, Mo., 110 S.W.2d 1112, 1116(7); Jones v. Haines, Hodges & Jones Bldg. & Development Co., Mo.App., 371 S.W.2d 342(6); Weisman v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 216 Mo.App. 13, 19, 267 S.W. 21, 23(2)) or where that is required to ca......
-
Shepherd v. State ex rel. State Highway Commission
...Our courts, however, do lay down some general rules as to construing restrictive covenants. As in Jones v. Haines, Hodges & Jones Building & Development Company, Mo.App., 371 S.W.2d 342, where it is said, l.c. '(1) The fundamental rule in construing restrictive covenants is that the intenti......
-
Brasher v. Grove
...526 S.W.2d 68, 72(6) (Mo.App.1975); Greenberg v. Koslow, 475 S.W.2d 434, 436(2) (Mo.App.1971); Jones v. Haines, Hodges & Jones Bldg. & Develop. Co., 371 S.W.2d 342, 344(2) (Mo.App.1963).4 Brownfield Subdivision, Inc. v. McKee, 61 Ill.2d 168, 334 N.E.2d 131 (1975); Jones v. Beiber, 251 Iowa ......
-
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 57371
...Missouri authorities on the interchangeability of the words 'and' and 'or' are collected in Jones v. Haines, Hodges & Jones Bldg. & Develop. Co., 371 S.W.2d 342, 344(6) (Mo.App.1963); City of St. Louis v. Consolidated Products Co., 185 S.W.2d 344, 346(2) (Mo.App.1945); Ex Parte Lockhart, 35......