Stone v. Pillsbury

• Decision Date: 06 January 1897
• Citation: 45 N.E. 768,167 Mass. 332
• Parties: STONE et al. v. PILLSBURY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

167 Mass. 332

45 N.E. 768

STONE et al. v. PILLSBURY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 6, 1897

COUNSEL

Gaston & Snow, for plaintiffs.

Charles E. Hellier, for defendants.

OPINION

ALLEN J.

The defendants contend, in the first place, that the restriction was not intended to apply to the house already upon the lot but only to houses which might be built in the future. If this were so, the plaintiffs would be without remedy if the house were to be considerably changed in its interior construction, and converted into an hotel for transient guests, a public eating house, a liquor shop, or a factory. We should be slow to give this construction to the deed. But on other grounds, we do not see our way clear to give to the plaintiffs the relief which they seek. The house was built and occupied as a single dwelling house by its original owner. Since then it has not been altered in construction either inside or outside. So far as its physical construction goes, it remains a single dwelling house. We do not determine whether any possible change in the manner of its use would be a violation of the restriction. It might, for example, be wholly given up as a residence, and used only for some purpose of trade. But its use as a residence continues, with some approach, also, towards a use as a private hotel or a private hospital. The words of the restriction are not very strong. They do not say that no building upon the granted land shall be used for any other purpose than as a private residence for a single family, without boarders, or even that no building shall be used otherwise than as a single dwelling house. The provision, omitting words not now material, is that no building other than one single dwelling house shall be maintained on said lot. Physically speaking, no other building is maintained there. No doubt, the present use is such as might reasonably have been provided against, if it had been anticipated. But the words are not plain. While a reasonable construction is to be given to them, doubts are to be resolved in favor of the grantee in the deed. Saltonstall v. Proprietors of Long Wharf, 7 Cush. 195, 201; Simonds v. Wellington, 10 Cush. 313; Thayer v. Payne, 2 Cush. 327, 331; Johnson v Jordan, 2 Metc. (Mass.) 234, 240; Amidon v. Harris, 113 Mass. 59, 65; Grubb v. Grubb, 101 Pa.St. 11. In some decided cases the limitation upon the use of the building has been clearly...