Powers v. Radding
| Decision Date | 19 October 1916 |
| Parties | POWERS v. RADDING et al. STONE v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case Reserved from Superior Court, Hampden County; Wm. Hamilton, Judge.
Actions for injunctions by Ida C. Powers and Sarah D. Stone against Edward Radding and others. Reserved on pleadings and agreed statement of facts for the determination of the full court. Writs granted.
Chas. H. Beckwith, of Springfield, for plaintiffs.
Ellis, Brewster & Ellis, of Springfield, for defendants.
September 4, 1863, one Bliss was the owner of a tract of land on the northerly side of Pearl street in the city of Springfield. He had acquired his title in 1832 to a larger tract out of which in 1856 he had conveyed to the United States between four and five acres with the understanding that the United States intended to open and construct streets on the westerly and northerly side of the granted premises and to which the grantor reserved to ‘myself my heirs and assigns of such (that is the grantor's) adjoining lands forever, the free right to use the said streets for travel after they shall be so made, with the right to abut upon the same and to enter and connect with them other streets from and across my adjoining land before mentioned, but so as not to interfere with the grades of the United States roads hereafter to be constructed.’ The United States opened and constructed the streets; the lands conveyed adjoined and became a part of the grounds of the United States Armory and Arsenal which have been located there since the eighteenth century.
‘No buildings have been erected on the said tract since the United States so acquired the land and the premises together with other lands adjoining the same to the south have been kept open and have been carefully and artistically cared for.’ He had also conveyed of the tract in 1848 and in February and April, 1863, lots at the northerly and southerly corners of Spring and Pearl streets.
September 4, 1863, there remained to him of his original purchase the land on the northerly side of Pearl street, that is the tract of land thereafter designated as lots 116, 122, 138, 150, 156, 162, 168, 176. The first of these lots to be sold was 122. The deed duly recorded contained the following provision:
Upon the death of the grantee Brown, the premises descended to his heirs and thereafter by mesne conveyances the title passed to the plaintiff Ida C. Powers.
The next parcel sold in November, 1863, was land lying easterly of lot 122 and westerly of lot 138, which tract was in 1868 divided and added to lots 122 and 138 and has since remained a part of these parcels. The deed was duly recorded and contained the following provision:
‘Provided and this deed is on condition that no building shall ever be erected or placed upon the premises nearer to Pearl street than twenty feet and no barn nearer to said street than six rods and that but one dwelling house shall be erected or placed thereon and that shall cost less than two thousand dollars or shall be less than two stories high and it is agreed that the other lots of the grantor westerly of the new gate shall when sold be subject to similar restrictions and be for the benefit of both parties hereto their heirs and assigns.’
The chief importance of this provision is that it marks and defines the territory which the grantor and grantee agreed should enjoy the benefit and suffer the burden of the restriction ‘as the other lots of the grantor westerly of the new gate.’ The next parcels sold were 116 in 1864, 138 in 1866, 150 in 1869. Each deed duly recorded contained the restriction among others:
‘That but one dwelling shall be erected and none that cost less than two thousand dollars or is less than two stories high.’
March 13, 1872, the grantor mortgaged the remaining lots, 156, 162, 168, 176, by deed with power of sale and containing the following provision:
‘Subject to such rights of drainage or aqueduct as any of my assigns may have now in said premises and subject to such restriction as to placing buildings thereon as I have stipulated and made in my previous conveyances on record of lots on said street.’
The mortgage was later duly foreclosed by sale and by mesne conveyances the parcel above referred to as No. 156 became the property of Vrylena McClean, the property above referred to as No. 162 became the property of the defendant Edward...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snow v. Van Dam
... ... We think that the erection of a building to be ... used for business purposes was a violation of the language of ... the restriction. Powers v. Radding, 225 Mass. 110, ... 114, 113 N.E. 782. The zoning of the land for business in ... 1927 by the city of Gloucester could not operate to ... ...
-
Weber v. Graner
...("for private residence purposes"); Arnoff v. Chase, 101 Ohio St. 331, 128 N.E. 319 ("one house only on each lot"); Powers v. Radding, 225 Mass. 110, 113 N.E. 782, 784 ("but one dwelling house"); Green v. Gerner, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 615, 616 ("no building other than one residence"). With......
-
Hamm v. Wilson, (No. 6979.)
...of more than one dwelling under a single roof, or the erection of a structure designed to include more than one." Powers v. Radding, 225 Mass. 110, 113 N. E. 782, 783. Where all the lots of a subdivision were conveyed subject to a covenant that the owner should not construct or allow to be ......
-
Hamm v. Wilson
... ... not permit of more than one dwelling under a single roof, or ... the erection of a structure designed to include more than ... one." Powers v. Radding, 225 Mass. 110, 113 ... N.E. 782, 783. Where all the lots of a subdivision were ... conveyed subject to a covenant that the owner should ... ...