Sayles v. Owens
Decision Date | 13 March 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 2287.,2287. |
Citation | 161 S.W.2d 542 |
Parties | SAYLES et al. v. OWENS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; M. S. Long, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Maggie F. Owens and another against John Sayles and others to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' use of a tract of land. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed, and temporary injunction dissolved.
Sayles & Sayles, of Abilene, for appellants.
Smith & Eplen and R. W. Haynie, all of Abilene, for appellees.
In 1887 Thomas H. Gunn owned Blocks O and D, the West 1/2 of Blocks N, K, H and E and Block C and the West 1/2 of Block B in the Herman Ward Survey No. 90, City of Abilene. On May 18, 1887 Gunn conveyed to Abilene City Land and Improvement Company Blocks O and D and the West 1/2 of Blocks N, K, H and E out of said survey. The deed was recorded in the Deed Records of Taylor County. It recited:
Blocks J and I theretofore sold by Gunn were soon after the execution of said deed acquired by the Improvement Company. The Improvement Company obtained a charter from the State in May 1887. Its purpose, as stated therein, was:
Said charter was recorded in the Deed Records of Taylor County.
In 1890 the heirs of Gunn conveyed to Henry Sayles the whole of Block C and West 1/2 of Block B of said Herman Ward Survey. Said deed contained no restrictions or covenant referable to the purposes for which said land might be used. On October 15, 1906, the charter of the Improvement Company was amended as follows: "The provisions of subdivision three of the original charter stipulating a specified cost of residences on the property therein mentioned, are hereby expressly abrogated except that the Board of Directors may hereafter make such stipulations as it sees fit, as to the cost of residences to be built on Boulevard Street." On October 30, 1906 the Improvement Company conveyed to M. Marx, Ed S. Hughes and Henry Sayles certain property. Said deed, insofar as it may be material here, is as follows:
It conveyed "All those certain Blocks O, J, I, and D and the West half of Blocks E, H, K, and N of the Henry Ward Survey No. 90, in the City of Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, and all spaces between the same containing forty-eight and one-half acres of land, the hereinafter described parts and parcels of land subject, however to the hereinafter mentioned conditions, limitations and trusts.
(The lots in controversy front on Boulevard Street or "Sayles Boulevard" and are out of the "restricted" portion of Boulevard Park Addition and are not out of said blocks nor out of the Highlands Addition.)
In May, 1910, by deed, which was recorded in Taylor County, Ed S. Hughes, Henry Sayles and Julia Marx (surviving wife and community survivor of M. Marx), together with John Sayles and wife and A. M. Robertson, partitioned among themselves all of Blocks O, J, I, and D and the West 1/2 of Blocks E, H, K, and N of said Herman Ward Survey. That deed recited that on October 30, 1906, M. Marx, Ed S. Hughes and Henry Sayles acquired from the Improvement Company by deed duly recorded in Taylor County Blocks O, J, I, and D and the West 1/2 of E, H, K, and N of said Ward Survey and all spaces in between the same. It recited that it was then desirable to recognize the individual interests of Henry Sayles, John Sayles, Ed S. Hughes and Julia Marx to certain portions of said property; to make provisions for streets and alleys and parks for the benefit of present and future owners of the property; to subdivide said land; to file a map of the subdivision for record; that there was attached to said partition deed a map entitled "Map of The Highlands" bearing signatures for identification of Henry Sayles, John Sayles, Ed S. Hughes and A. M. Robertson. Said map being duly recorded in the Deed Records of Taylor County. Said deed did not embrace Lots 1 and 2 in Block 5, Boulevard Park Addition to Abilene, and did not refer to the deed from Gunn to the Improvement Company. In December, 1915, Henry Sayles conveyed by a deed thereafter duly recorded in Taylor County an undivided one-half interest in Block B and the West 1/2 of Block C of said Ward Survey to Thomas Sayles. Henry Sayles died in June, 1916 and by the due probate of his will all of his interest in the said property was invested in his surviving wife, Hattie McAlpine Sayles. Thomas Sayles conveyed his undivided interest in Blocks B and C to Hattie McAlpine Sayles in February 1920. Said deed contained no mention of any restrictions or covenants referable to the use of Blocks B and C. In February 1920 Hattie McAlpine Sayles conveyed said Blocks B and C to Henry James et al. Said deed contained no restrictions or covenants referable to the use to which said blocks might be put. It did contain the following stipulation: "Provided, however, that the Boulevard and South Third Streets running through said property and Digby Avenue shall remain open for the use and benefit of the public." Neither the Improvement Company, Henry Sayles, Thomas Sayles, nor Hattie Sayles ever built any residence upon any part of the Blocks B and C. Henry James et al purchased said Blocks B and C as real estate investors and subdivided same into lots for the purpose of selling them to various parties and none of them built a residence on any part of said blocks, and none of them ever lived thereon. In March, 1920, Henry James et al. subdivided certain land, including Blocks B and C, as shown by a map of such subdivision recorded in the Deed Records of Taylor County, dedicating said subdivision as Boulevard Park Addition to Abilene. On March 17, 1920, by partition deed duly recorded in Taylor County, James et al. divided all of said property in Boulevard Park Addition among themselves. Lots 1 and 2 in Block 5 of the Boulevard...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farmer v. Thompson
...Mach. & Supply Co., Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W. 678; Barreda v. Craig, Thompson & Jeffries, Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 177; Sayles v. Owens, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 542; Benbow v. Boney, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 438, writ refused; 12 Tex.Jur., p. 173, sec. We are constrained to hold that although t......
-
Polk v. Rice, 3468
...Hoffman v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex.Com.App., 273 S.W. 828, 830; Cain v. Neumann, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S.W.2d 915, 918; Sayles v. Owens, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 542, 548, (Ref. W.M.); 20 Tex. Law Review 281, 283; Summers Oil & Gas, Perm.Ed. Vol. 3, p. 632. That part of the judgment which, ......
-
Knopf v. Standard Fixtures Co., Inc.
...covenant intended. See Karam v. H. E. Butt Grocery Co., 527 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1975, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Sayles v. Owens, 161 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1942, writ ref'd w. o. m.). The general rule is that before a party is entitled to injunctive relief, there mus......
-
Womack v. Dean, 6732
...e.; Scaling v. Sutton, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 275, writ ref., w. o. m.; Klein v. Palmer, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 652; Sayles v. Owens, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 542, writ ref., w. o. m., and authorities there Appellant's other points attack the findings of the trial court: (a) That the ge......