Murphy v. Marino
| Decision Date | 30 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 3562,3562 |
| Citation | 60 So.2d 128 |
| Parties | MURPHY et al. v. MARINO. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Cashio & Cashio, John R. Sheppard, Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Robt. C. Taylor, Baton Rouge, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment rendered in a suit involving the validity of a building restriction contained in a sale from The Richland Company, Inc. to the plaintiff, Mary Grand Murphy of Lot 21, Square F of a subdivision known as 'Steele Place' recorded in Conveyance Book 455, Folio 79 of the records of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
The deed of conveyance contains several restrictions but the one at issue is as follows:
'* * * and neither the purchaser or her heirs, successors or assigns shall ever erect more than one residence on said lot. * * *'
The facts as admitted in the pleadings and in a pre-trial conference are that Mrs. Mary Grand Murphy acquired the lot in question by the aforesaid deed on October 1, 1940, and that said deed contained the above quoted restriction limiting the purchaser, her successors or assigns, from construction of more than one residence on the said lot; which lot measures 130 feet front on Richland Avenue, by a depth between parallel lines and along Broussard Street of two hundred eighty (280) feet.
On March 12, 1951 the plaintiff, Mary Grand Murphy, the undisputed owner of Lot 21, Square F, Steele Place, with the approval of the City Council of the City of Baton Rouge, re-subdivided the said lot by the sale of the westerly eighty (80) feet thereof known as Lot 'B', to the plaintiff T. Lacy Grand.
It is shown that the plaintiff, Mary Grand Murphy, proposes the building of a residence upon Lot 'A' of said re-subdivision, measuring one hundred thirty (130) feet on Richland Avenue by a depth between parallel lines along Broussard Street of two hundred (200) feet and for that purpose, obtained Permit No. 7243 from the City of Baton Rouge and that the plaintiff, T. Lacy Grand, proposes to erect a residence upon Lot 'B' of said re-subdivision, measuring eighty (80) feet front on Broussard Street by a depth of one hundred thirty (130) feet between parallel lines and has obtained Permit No. 7222 from the City of Baton Rouge for the erection of said residence.
It is further shown that on or about January 4, 1951, Charles Marino, the defendant herein, and owner of Lot 1 of Square F of the Steele Place Subdivision which lot lies immediately west of Lot 21 of Square F of said subdivision (being Lots 'A' and 'B' of the re-subdivision), wrote to the petitioners protesting the use of said Lot 21 for more than one residence and claiming that the building of more than one residence thereon is in direct conflict with the restriction contained in the act of acquisition of plaintiff Mary Grand Murphy.
Plaintiffs set forth in their petition that they cannot safely begin construction upon the said properties because of the threats contained in the letter of protest from the defendant Marino and that they have no adequate remedy to determine whether or not the restriction involved is applicable to the properties of petitioners and presently enforceable, and they therefore pray the court that, after due proceedings had, they may have judgment determining the meaning of the restriction and the present validity thereof and more particularly determining their rights with relation to the erection of two residences upon said Lot 21, Square F, Steele Place as re-subdivided and their rights to respectively proceed with their construction thereon.
It is further shown that the subdivision in question was created by The Richland Company, Inc. and consisted of an area of about six and one-half acres, divided into seven (7) blocks designated as Blocks A to G, inclusive, and one hundred thirtyseven (137) lots of various sizes.
It is further shown that the deeds did not contain uniform restrictions. Some of the deeds restricted the purchaser, his heirs or assigns, to the building of one residence only, whereas, others permitted the building of two dwellings and others contained no provisions whatsoever as to the number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc.
......758, 125 So.2d 154 (1960). Failure to provide for the uniformity of the restrictions may vitiate a general development plan. See Murphy v. Marino, 60 So.2d 128 (La.App. 1 Cir.1952). . In Murphy, the court stated: . It is our understanding of the ......
-
Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., No. 05-C-0470 (La. 9/6/2006), 05-C-0470.
...154 (La. 1960). Failure to provide for the uniformity of the restrictions may vitiate a general development plan. See Murphy v. Marino, 60 So. 2d 128 (La. App. 1 Cir. In Murphy, the court stated: It is our understanding of the law that in order to create a binding covenant running with the ......
-
Gwatney v. Miller
...... We agree. In support of his position, appellant relies upon the following jurisprudence: Murphy v. Marino, 60 So.2d 128 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1952); Lamana-Panno-Fallo, Inc. v. Heebe, 352 So.2d 1303 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977) and In re Congregation of ......
-
McGuffy v. Weil
...... Plaintiff relies upon Holloway v. Ransome, 216 La. 317, 43 So.2d [240 La. 764] 673; Murphy v. Marino, La.App., 60 So.2d 128; Herzberg v. Harrison, La.App., 102 So.2d 554 and Begnaud v. Hill, La.App., 109 So.2d 562. On the ......
-
The Perils of Primacy: Successor Liability for Lenders Turned Declarants in Louisiana Common Interest Communities
...Olivier v. Berggren, 136 So. 2d 325 (La. Ct. App. 1962). 155. YIANNOPOULOS, supra note 130, § 195, at 523 . See also Murphy v. Marino, 60 So. 2d 128 (La. Ct. App. 1952); In re Congregation of St. Rita Roman Catholic Church, 130 So. 2d 425 (La. Ct. App. 1961) (imposing restrictions on only 4......