Klein v. Palmer
Decision Date | 15 May 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 11186.,11186. |
Citation | 151 S.W.2d 652 |
Parties | KLEIN v. PALMER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Ewing Boyd, Judge.
Suit by C. A. Palmer and others against N. J. Klein and another to restrain the defendants from selling or offering for sale or permitting intoxicating liquors of any kind to be sold on a certain lot. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and the named defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Harry W. Freeman, of Houston, for appellant.
Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Harris County granting an application of appellees, C. A. Palmer and others, for a permanent injunction restraining E. L. Durbin and appellant, N. J. Klein, defendants in the trial court, from selling or offering for sale, or permitting intoxicating liquors of any kind to be sold on Lot No. 215 of Riverview Addition to the City of Houston. Appellees instituted the suit in their own behalf and as class representatives of other persons owning lots in said Riverview Addition. They alleged that appellant, N. J. Klein, was the owner of said Lot No. 215 and that E. L. Durbin had leased said lot from him and that he contemplated erecting a building thereon in which he purposed to sell intoxicating liquors.
Defendants answered by general denial and general demurrer. They specially pled that the restrictions sought to be enforced had been waived and abandoned by the owner of said addition and the residents thereof prior to the filing of the suit.
At the request of defendants, the court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
The record shows that the deed from W. L. Edmundson to the respective purchasers, including the deed conveying said Lot No. 215, owned by appellant Klein, and to the lots owned by appellees contained the following covenants and restriction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. Foster
...161 S.W.2d 316; O'Connor v. Ryan, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W. 2d 531; Sansing v. Bricka, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 142; Klein v. Palmer et al., Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 652; and Temple Trust Co. et al. v. Haney, 133 Tex. 414, 126 S.W.2d 950. We believe the evidence hereinafter discussed supports ......
-
Braswell v. Woods, 11842.
...property as they see fit, provided they do not contravene public policy and their contracts are not otherwise illegal. Klein v. Palmer et al., Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 652; Curlee v. Walker et al., 112 Tex. 40, 244 S.W. 497; Co-operative Vineyards Co. v. Fort Stockton Irrigated Lands Co., T......
-
Rudy v. Southampton Civic Club, 3160
...irrespective of the order of the several conveyances, and irrespective of whether the covenants run with the land.' Klein v. Palmer, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 652, 654; Monk v. Danna, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 84; Hooper v. Lottman, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W. 270; Curlee v. Walker, 112 Tex. 40, 2......
-
Aircraftsmen, Inc. v. Kirkman, 7786
...Bricka, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S . W.2d 142; Hood v. First National Bank of Panhandle, Tex.Civ.App., 410 S.W.2d 449 (n.r.e.); Klein v. Palmer, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 652; Temple Trust Co. et al. v. Haney, 133 Tex. 414, 126 S.W.2d 950; Postal Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Greene et al., Tex.Civ.App.,......