Snyder v. Heath
| Decision Date | 02 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | 445. |
| Citation | 117 S.E. 294,185 N.C. 362 |
| Parties | SNYDER ET AL. v. HEATH. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Long, Judge.
Action by J. Luther Snyder and others against H. B. Heath. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The grantees of land, under a deed limiting the use to residential purposes only, and containing a restriction on the cost of the buildings and their location with respect to the street held capable of giving a good and indefeasible fee title without restrictions, in view of the fact that deeds to adjoining lots from a common grantor had expressly reserved all rights not granted, which rights had been subsequently released by deed from the grantor, and in view of the fact that the original deed containing the restrictions did not contain any forfeiture clause in case of breach.
Controversy without action submitted on an agreed statement of facts.
On January 3, 1923, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a valid written contract whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sell and convey to the defendant, and the defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiffs, a good and indefeasible fee-simple title to four certain lots of land situate in the city of Charlotte, and being shown and designated as lots Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10, in Block No. 2, on the map of the property of the Highland Park Company, which is recorded in the office of the register of deeds for said county, each of the said lots fronting 72 1/2 feet on the west side of Hawthorn lane, with a depth of 193 feet. The said lots of land were to be conveyed free and clear of all liens and incumbrances and free and clear from all conditions and restrictions limiting or affecting the use and occupancy thereof, except such restrictions and conditions as may have been placed on the same, prohibiting the ownership and occupancy thereof by persons of the negro race.
The plaintiffs tendered to defendant a deed in due form for the said lots of land. The defendant refused to accept the deed and to comply with said contract, for that the Highland Park Company, the original owner of the whole tract of land, for which the aforesaid lots are a part, conveyed lot No. 9, in block 2, by deed dated September 17, 1902, with the following provisions incorporated therein:
"And in consideration of the premises, it is expressly covenanted and agreed between the parties to this deed and made a condition thereof that the party of the second part his heirs and assigns, shall use the lots hereby conveyed for residence lots only, and that any residence building that may be erected on said lots shall not cost less than $2,000; that no building shall be erected thereon within 25 feet of the street or avenue upon which the building fronts; and further, that no part of the property hereby conveyed shall ever be owned or occupied as a tenant by any colored person."
It is the contention of the defendant that, on account of these provisions in the deed of the Highland Park Company plaintiffs cannot convey to him a good and indefeasible fee-simple title to said lot No. 9 in block No. 2. The deeds for the other three lots, covered by the contract, contained no conditions or restrictions whatever, and there is no question raised as to the title thereto.
About the year 1893 the Highland Park Company, a corporation acquired a large tract of land, of which the said lots of land above described are a part, which was then outside of the city of Charlotte, but is now located in the eastern section of said city; that said company caused to be made a map of a part of said property, showing a division into the lots and blocks, streets and alleyways, a copy of the map being of record in the register's office in said county. Another slightly different map of the same area was caused to be made and recorded by the said company. A concise history of the conveyances of the said Highland Park Company of the property shown on said maps is as follows: (a) 48 lots and a 20-acre tract were conveyed prior to the locus in quo without restrictions; (b) 29 lots were conveyed after the locus in quo without restrictions; (c) 38 lots, represented by 23 deeds, were conveyed subject to restrictions by 4 deeds before,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Glenn
... ... the grantor will in his future conveyances abide by such plan ... of division. See Snyder v. Heath, 185 N.C. 362, 117 ... S.E. 294 and Thomas v. Rogers, 191 N.C. 736, 133 ... No ... covenant that the owner will not ... ...
-
Phillips v. Wearn
...to the grantors, and those covenants became unenforceable with the final dissolution and liquidation of the aforesaid corporations. Snyder v. Heath, supra; Thomas v. Rogers, 191 736, 133 S.E. 18; DeLaney v. Hart, supra. The appellant admits that his contract of purchase provides for the ret......
-
De Laney v. Hart
...The judgment is affirmed. Thomas v. Rogers, 191 N.C. 736, 133 S.E. 18; Davis v. Robinson, 189 N.C. 589, 127 S.E. 697; Snyder v. Heath, 185 N.C. 362, 117 S.E. 294. instant case is distinguishable from Johnston v. Garrett, 190 N.C. 835, 130 S.E. 835. The lot involved in that case was included......
-
Thomas v. Rogers
...they or the corporation had to enforce the restrictions in the deed under which plaintiff held the locus in quo. It is so held in Snyder v. Heath, supra. trustees held as joint tenants, with the right of survivorship incident to their tenancy. C. S. 1736; Webb v. Borden, 145 N.C. 188, 58 S.......