Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co.
Decision Date | 08 April 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 675-4307.) |
Parties | SETTEGAST et ux. v. FOLEY BROS. DRY GOODS CO. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by J. J. Settegast and wife against the Foley Brothers Dry Goods Company. From judgment denying temporary injunction, plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals of the First Supreme Judicial District, and it certifies a question. Question answered.
Henry J. Dannenbaum, of Houston, for appellants.
Maurice Epstein, of Houston, for appellee.
This case is before the Supreme Court on certificate from the Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston. We summarize the facts:
On December 28, 1920, J. J. Settegast and wife were owners of lots 11 and 12 in block 45 in the city of Houston. On that date they executed to Foley Bros. Dry Goods Company, a corporation, a lease for a continuous period of 99 years, from and after July 1, 1922, with privilege on the part of the lessee to terminate same after 10 years. At the time of the execution of this lease there was a building and other improvements on these lots, and the lease covered the improvements as well as the entire two lots. At the time the lease was given Settegast and wife owned parts of lots 4 and 5 in block 45, upon which there was a building known as the Settegast building. The Settegast building was immediately east of the building on lot 11. It extended up to the west line of lots 4 and 5, but the building on lot 11 was set back 6 feet from the east line of this lot, leaving an alleyway of about 6 feet between the two buildings. The Settegast building was then under lease to certain parties, which lease would expire by its terms June 30, 1922. Paragraph 14 of the Foley lease contains the grounds of disagreement between the parties. It is as follows:
On December 15, 1922, Settegast and wife executed a lease to M. H. Hurlock on lots 5 and 4, upon which was the Settegast building, which lease was for a continuous period of 99 years from and after January 1, 1923, and which provides that the lessee, his heirs or assigns, may have the right and option of buying the property at any time. On August 24, 1924, this lease was assigned to the Foley Bros. Dry Goods Company, the holder of the lease on lots 11 and 12.
This action was brought by Settegast and wife against Foley Bros. Dry Goods Company to obtain an injunction. Among other things it is alleged that the defendant, Foley Bros. Dry Goods Company, having become the holder of both leases, is about to remove the walls of the building on the east side of lot 11 and of the first three floors of the building on the west side of lots 5 and 4, and to unite said two buildings, thereby closing the alleyway hereinabove referred to from the ground to the height of three stories, and thereby create for its use one entire undivided floor space on each of said three floors. The injunction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Huey
...doubt of its meaning, the ambiguity and doubt should be resolved in favor of the free use of the land. Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co., 114 Tex. 452, 270 S.W. 1014; Ragland v. Overton, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 768, 771; Holliday v. Sphar, 262 Ky. 45, 89 S.W.2d 327; Thompson on Real Pr......
-
Lassiter v. Bliss
...by implication. Couch v. Southern Methodist University, 10 S.W.2d 973 (Tex.Com.App.1928, holding approved); Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co., 114 Tex. 452, 270 S.W. 1014 (1925, opinion adopted). This court has made it quite clear that where the language of a restrictive covenant is am......
-
Walker v. Pointer, Civ. A. No. 3-2929-B.
...of Georgia, supra note 18; Commonwealth v. Burford, 225 Pa. 93, 73 A. 1064 (1909). 20 See, generally, Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co., 114 Tex. 452, 270 S.W. 1014 (Comm'n.App.1925). 21 Davis v. Clark, 271 S.W. 190 (Tex.Civ. App.1925), 22 Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 156 S.......
-
Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...construction, but will be given effect according to the plain meaning and intent of the language used. Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co. , 114 Tex. 452, 270 S.W. 1014, 1016 (1925).3 Texas jurisprudence steadily adhered to this strict approach for decades. Indeed, fifty-six years after ......