Stephens Co v. Binder

• Citation: 151 S.E. 639
• Decision Date: 12 February 1930
• Docket Number: (No. 490.)
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Parties: STEPHENS CO. v. BINDER et al.

151 S.E. 639

(198 N.C. 295)

STEPHENS CO.

v.BINDER et al.

(No. 490.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 12, 1930.

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Shaw, Judge.

Action by the Stephens Company against Jacob Binder, Jr., and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. No error.

Action to determine the validity of the claims of defendants that each has the right, as the owner of a lot included within block 26, Myers Park, claiming title thereto under plaintiff, to enjoin plaintiff from dividing for purposes of sale that portion of said block, which is included within lots numbered 10 to 20, as shown on a map of block 26, Myers Park, recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Mecklenburg county, and now owned by plaintiff, into lots of less frontage than 100 feet, and of less area than one-half an acre, and also from changing the location of certain streets shown on said map. Plaintiff alleges that the claims of defendants are clouds upon its title to said land, and prays that it be adjudged that said claims are invalid.

Defendants allege that block 26, Myers Park, was platted and mapped by plaintiff, the owner thereof, under a general scheme or plan for its development as a high-class residential section, and that said general plan or scheme is shown by the map of block 26, Myers Park, which plaintiff caused to be made and recorded, prior to its conveyance of the lots now owned by defendants. Defendants contend that they each have the right to enjoin plaintiff from conveying any lots included in said block 20, contrary to the said general plan or scheme, as shown by said map.

The issue submitted to the jury was answered as follows: "Have the defendants a right to prevent plaintiff from subdividing that part of block 26, embraced in lots Nos. 10 to 20, inclusive, into lots of less than 100 feet frontage, and less than one-half acre in size, and also from changing the location of 'A Road' and that part of 'Q Road, ' on the east side of block 26? Answer: No."

In accordance with the verdict, it was considered, ordered, and adjudged "that plaintiff is the owner of that part of block 26 of Myers Park embraced in lots 10 to 20, inclusive, as shown by map recorded in Map Book No. 230, at page 276, in the office of the register of deeds of Mecklenburg county, and that the defendants have no rights to prevent the plaintiff from subdividing said land into lots with a less frontage than 100 feet, and a lessarea than one-half acre, and no right to prevent the plaintiff from altering the location of 'A Road' and that part of 'Q Road' that lies on the east side of block 26."

From the judgment rendered, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

H. L. Taylor, of Charlotte, for appellants.

Whitlock, Dockery & Shaw and Taliaferro & Clarkson, all of Charlotte, for appellee.

CONNOR, J. On or about January 1, 1913, plaintiff, a corporation, owned in fee simple a parcel of land, containing about 15 acres, located within the boundaries of Myers Park, a suburb of the city of Charlotte, N. C. It caused a map of said parcel of land to be made and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Mecklenburg county. On this map the said parcel of land is designated as block 26, Myers Park. The map shows said parcel of land divided into 20 lots, 9 of said lots fronting on the ''Boulevard, " and the remaining 11 lots, Nos. 10 to 20,...