Lawson v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 13 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16594. |
| Citation | 52 S.E.2d 859,205 Ga. 227 |
| Parties | LAWSON v. LEWIS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Statement of facts by DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice:
Charlie N. Lewis, Mrs. Charlie N. Lewis, and L. H. Cox filed in the Superior Court of Clayton County, Georgia, a petition naming as defendant Mrs. Annie Bell Stephens Lawson and alleging the following: The defendant is the owner and in possession of described real estate in land lot 12, of the 13th district of Clayton County, Georgia, and also the owner and in possession of described real estate in said land lot and district known as lot No. 2. At the time the said property was subdivided, the first-mentioned parcel was conveyed by warranty deed from Leslie H. Cox to W. J Lambert, which was dated August 4, 1927, and contained the following restrictive covenant: 'The first residential improvements placed upon said property shall be a residence erected on the front part thereof to cost not less than $2500, and such residence shall be occupied only by people of the white race, not for any business purposes.' The said deed was duly recorded. The second-mentioned parcel was conveyed by the said Leslie H. Cox by warranty deed to Mrs Hattie M. Jenkins, which was dated October 18, 1928, and contained the following restrictive covenant: 'This deed given by party of the first part and is accepted by party of the second part, subject to the following restrictions and limitations that property herein conveyed shall be used for residential purposes only, and no business houses or houses shall be erected thereon, nor shall the property be used by or transferred to, any person of African descent, except however, that said restrictions and limitations may be modified in writing by the first party or his heirs.' The said deed was duly recorded. The defendant purchased both of the said parcels of land from N. W. Johnson in March, 1947, her deed being duly recorded; and being the successor in title to the same, she is as such bound by the covenants contained in the deeds acquired by the said W. J. Lambert and Mrs. Hattie M. Jenkins. The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Charlie N. Lewis, are the owners of lot No. 3 of the said Leslie H. Cox Subdivision adjoining the said above-mentioned parcels of land, and the deed executed by the said Leslie H. Cox to their predecessors in title contained a similar restrictive covenant, and they purchased the property on account of it and that adjoining it containing like covenants, so they could enjoy their home in an area restricted to residential purposes. The said Leslie H. Cox has never modified the restrictions and they are in full force and effect. The defendant, by herself, her agents, lessees, or employees, has permitted a fireworks stand to be placed upon the described premises (which in open court upon the hearing on demurrers was stated to be on lot No. 1 and was so treated by the parties without an amendment being filed); the said fireworks stand being for the purpose of selling and dispensing fireworks and other merchandise in violation of the restrictive covenants hereinbefore referred to. Mr. and Mrs. Charlie N. Lewis reside in their residence located on their lot above mentioned, and L. H. Cox is the owner of other property in the near vicinity; and unless a court of equity will restrain the violation of the covenants herein set out, the petitioners will be deprived of the peace and enjoyment of their home and suffer irreparable damages. The prayers were: (a) For process; (b) for a rule nisi requiring the defendant to show cause why she should not be restrained from violating the said covenants; (c) that temporary and permanent orders be granted, restraining the defendant, her agents, lessees, and employees from conducting any business on the premises; (d) for general relief.
The defendant demurred generally on the following grounds: (a) The petition does not set forth any cause of action against the defendant. (b) The petition does not contain sufficient allegations to entitle the petitioners to equitable relief against the defendant. (c) The petition shows on its face that no violation of the alleged restrictions is being made by the defendant. (d) The restrictions, if existing, are too vague and indefinite to be enforceable against the defendant. (e) The restrictions show by their wording that they never contemplated the restriction of a temporary enterprise such as the sale of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphey v. Gray, 6349
...of the restrictions as effectively as if she had executed the instrument. Carlson v. Libby, 137 Conn. 362, 77 A.2d 332; Lawson v. Lewis, 205 Ga. 227, 52 S.E.2d 859; Mathis v. Mathis, 402 Ill. 60, 83 N.E.2d 270; Midland Ry. Co. v. Fisher, 125 Ind. 19, 24 N.E. 756; Westrick v. Unterbrink, 90 ......
-
Montana v. Blount
...60 S.E.2d 371 [(1950)]." See also Grove Lakes Subdivision v. Hollingsworth, 218 Ga. 443, 444, 128 S.E.2d 499 (1962); Lawson v. Lewis, 205 Ga. 227(2), 52 S.E.2d 859 (1949); Reid v. Standard Oil Co., etc., 107 Ga.App. 497, 501-502(3), 130 S.E.2d 777 (1963). "`When a grantee accepts a deed and......
-
Voyles v. Knight
...Inc., 191 Ga. 196, 12 S.E.2d 623; David v. Bowen, 191 Ga. 467, 12 S.E.2d 873; Shoaf v. Bland, 508 Ga. 709, 69 S.E.2d 258; Lawson v. Lewis, 205 Ga. 227, 52 S.E.2d 859; Richardson v. Passmore, 207 Ga. 572, 63 S.E.2d 392. Indeed, any doubt as to the restrictions on use will be construed in fav......
-
Taylor v. Smith
...he will be bound by the covenants contained therein although the deed has not been signed by him. Code § 29-102; Lawson v. Lewis, 250 Ga. 227, 52 S.E.2d 859. No precise or technical words are necessary to create a covenant but language which will evidence the intention of the parties that a......