Lewenstein v. Brown
Decision Date | 15 January 1946 |
Docket Number | 15349,15350. |
Parties | LEWENSTEIN et al. v. BROWN et al. BROWN et al. v. WALKER et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1946.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A restriction in a deed that 'the above property is sold for residence purposes only' does not prohibit the erection of an apartment house to be used for residence purposes only.
2. The Board of Zoning Appeals of Fulton County has no authority to grant permission for the erection of an apartment house on property that has been zoned for residence purposes only.
Miss Catharine Brown and seventeen others filed suit against Dun Lewenstein and Mrs. R. S. Lewenstein. The petition alleged that all the plaintiffs are property owners of the Peachtree Hills Place subdivision; that this subdivision was restricted to residences only by a provision contained in the deed to the property, and also by a general scheme or plan of development of the subdivision; that the zoning regulations of Fulton County restricted this property to residences only that the defendants, in violation of these restrictions, were attempting to erect an apartment house on property located in the subdivision. The prayer was for an injunction. The defendants answered, denying the material allegations of the petition, and contending that they had a permit from the proper authorities for the construction of the apartment house, and that the building of the apartment house was not in violation of any restriction either in the deeds or zoning regulations.
Upon the hearing the evidence disclosed that there are now no apartment houses located in this subdivision; that the defendants were preparing to erect an apartment house to be used for residence purposes only on vacant lots owned by them in Peachtree Hills Place subdivision. The evidence was in sharp conflict as to the effect the erection of the proposed apartment house would have on other property located in the subdivision as single-unitresidences. The evidence further disclosed that on November 17, 1941, M Solloway made application to the building inspector of Fulton County for a building permit to erect an apartment house on the property now owned by the defendants. The building inspector on the same date denied the permit on the ground that the property had been zoned for residence purposes only. This decision of the building inspector was on the same date made the subject of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of Fulton County. On December 11, 1941, the appeal was 'approved,' with certain 'restrictions' as to the manner in which the apartment house should be erected. On January 27, 1942, M. Solloway 'surrendered the permit had the same canceled out.' On July 18, 1945, the building inspector of Fulton County issued a permit to the defendant Dun Lewenstein for the erection of an apartment house on the property now in question.
A zoning ordinance for unincorporated areas of Fulton County, adopted by the board of commissioners of roads and revenues of Fulton County on June 16, 1939, was introduced in evidence. This ordinance, so far as here material, reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. Smith, 47826
...was for 'residence purposes only': Hunt v. Held, 90 Ohio St. 280, 107 N.E. 765, L.R.A.1915D, 543, Ann.Cas.1916C, 1051; Lewenstein v. Brown, 200 Ga. 433, 37 S.E.2d 332, 335; Miller v. Ettinger, 235 Mich. 527, 209 N.W. 568; McMurtry v. Phillips Inv. Co., 102 Ky. 308, 45 S.W. 96, 40 L.R.A. 489......
-
Barton v. Hardin
...590, 86 A.L.R. 703; Kitchings v. Hennessee, 73 Ga.App. 848, 38 S.E.2d 431; Morris v. Lunsford, 176 Ga. 49, 167 S.E. 297; Lewenstein v. Brown, 200 Ga. 433, 37 S.E.2d 332. While recognizing the general principle that there can be no vested right in an existing law which precludes its change b......
- Barton v. Hardin
- Graham v. Phinizy