Schaeffer v. Gatling

Citation243 Miss. 155,137 So.2d 819
Decision Date19 February 1962
Docket NumberNo. 42169,42169
PartiesJames B. SCHAEFFER et al. v. James S. GATLING et al.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Prewitt & Bullard, Vicksburg, for appellant.

Oscar LaBarre, Vicksburg, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Justice.

James B. Schaeffer and his wife, defendants below and appellants here, acquired title on January 10, 1958, to Lots 7, 8 and 9, Dabney's Residential Subdivision located just outside the City of Vicksburg. The plat of said subdivision shows 27 lots, and at the time of trial about 12 residences had been constructed by the various owners of said lots. The subdivision was established in 1948 when the plat thereof was filed and when the original owner conveyed Lots 7, 8 and 9 to appellants' predecessors in title, the deeds contained the following restrictive covenants:

'AS PART of the consideration for the sale of said property to the vendee herein, the said vendee agrees that he will observe the following restrictions and covenants which are to run with the land:

'Said property is to be used strictly for residential purposes and is not to be used for automobile filling station, repair shop, tourist camp, bill boards, dance hall, store or for any other commercial or manufacturing purposes. No residences shall be erected on said land which shall cost less than $6,000.00, exclusive of outhouses or other buildings in connection with said residence, and the front of said residence, exclusive of any gallery or porch that may be attached to said building, shall be set back from the front, or Highway 61 line of said lot, not less than thirty-five (35) feet; nor is said lot, land or residence to be occupied by or sold to any persons other than members of the Caucasian race. These restrictions are to be binding for a period of twenty-five years.'

After appellants purchased said lots they constructed a home on Lots 7 and 8 and have since lived thereon. During December 1960, appellants purchased for more than $6,000 a 55-foot Magnolia Mobile Home, commonly known as a house trailer, and moved it on Lot 9 adjacent to their home. Sewer, water and electrical installations were connected to the house trailer which contained three bedrooms and one and a half baths. The trailer was set back thirty-five feet from the front of the lot. After the house trailer was thus placed on said Lot 9 and established on concrete piers with the wheels of the trailer remaining thereon, the daughter and son-in-law and two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Kinchen v. Layton
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 26 Septiembre 1984
    ...and enforced, so long as clear language is used. Over twenty years ago, this Court correctly stated in Schaeffer v. Gatling, 243 Miss. 155, 159, 137 So.2d 819, 820 (1962). "If the original owner of the subdivision had desired to prohibit the use of house trailers as residences, this could e......
  • City of Gulfport v. Wilson, 89-CA-0470
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 3 Junio 1992
    ...as in this case, the restrictive covenants expressly permit the use being made of the land." Id. at 346 citing Shaeffer v. Gatling, 243 Miss. 155, 159, 137 So.2d 819, 820 (1962). Mendrop v. Harrell, 233 Miss. 679, 103 So.2d 418 (1958), the Court construed restrictive covenants and stated: "......
  • Lake Serene Prop. Owners Ass'n Inc. v. Esplin
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 2022
    ...of the land." Kinchen v. Layton , 457 So. 2d 343, 346 (Miss. 1984) (third alteration in original) (quoting Schaeffer v. Gatling , 243 Miss. 155, 159, 137 So. 2d 819, 820 (1962) ). Restrictive covenants should be "fairly and reasonably interpreted according to their apparent purpose." Mendro......
  • McBride v. Behrman
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Common Pleas
    • 4 Agosto 1971
    ...The court then went on to discuss the terms 'building', 'house', and 'mobile home', among others, and referred to Schaeffer v. Gatling, 243 Miss. 155, 137 So.2d 819, wherein the court indicated that the restriction could have been applicable if 'temporary residences' had been prohibited; it......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT