Taylor v. Smith
| Decision Date | 18 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22954,22954 |
| Citation | 142 S.E.2d 918,221 Ga. 55 |
| Parties | James W. TAYLOR et al. v. E. Mace SMITH, Jr., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Maxwell A. Hines, Tifton, Ga., for plaintiffs in error.
Seymour S. Owens, J. Dickie Crosby, Tifton, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
E. Mace Smith, Jr., Betty Nelson Smith and George J. Sumner filed an equitable suit against James W. Taylor and Eloise V. Taylor. The petition alleges: On May 6, 1947 R. S. Dorminey conveyed to E. W. Spooner a tract of land in Tift County containing 27 acres, more or less. His deed contained the following clause: 'This tract of land is conveyed for residential and farming purposes and no business property is to be erected thereon.' Spooner subdivided the tract in 1948 and caused a plat of it to be recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Tift County. Spooner sold lots in his subdivision and by conveyances either from him or his remote grantee, petitioners and defendants acquired lots therein on which they reside. In 1958 the defendants erected a structure on their lot for storage use and in 1964 they remodeled such building and are using it for a beauty shop. The remodeled structure is located near the respective homes of the petitioners and its use for a beauty shop is gratly depreciating their values and rendering them undersirable for residential purposes. They prayed for an injunction temporarily and permanently restraining the defendants from using the remodeled storage structure on their property for beauty shop purposes. The defendants demurred to the petition on general and special grounds. It was amended to meet the grounds of special demurrer and after being thus amended, the demurrers were renewed to the petition as amended and other grounds of demurrer, both general and special were interposed. All of the demurrers were overruled and there is an exception to that judgment. The case was heard on the pleadings and a stipulation of facts which raise only one issue, namely, does the restrictive covenant in the parties' deeds prohibit the use of the defendants' property for beauty shop purposes? The defendants were temporarily enjoined from using the building on their lot for such business purpose and they also excepted to that judgment. Held:
1. As a general rule, the owner of land in fee has a right to use his property for any lawful purpose, and any claim that there are restrictions upon the use of it must be clearly established, and any limitation upon the use thereof will be strictly construed, as limitations thereon by implication are not favored. Any doubt respecting restrictions on the use of property will be construed in favor of the grantee. Voyles v. Knight, 220 Ga. 305(1), 138 S.E.2d 565, and the several cases there cited.
2. It is a cardinal rule of construction that deeds like other contracts should be construed so as to give full effect to the intention of the parties, and in the construction of such instruments the courts are not authorized to place a construction upon them which will defeat the intention of parties thereto. Huie v. McDaniel, 105 Ga. 319(1), 31 S.E. 189.
3. When a grantee accepts a deed to land and enters thereunder, he will be bound by the covenants contained therein although the deed has not been signed by him. Code § 29-102; Lawson v. Lewis, 250 Ga. 227, 52 S.E.2d 859. No precise or technical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roth v. Connor
...use of land by implication are not favored and must be strictly construed against the person seeking the restriction. Taylor v. Smith, 221 Ga. 55, 142 S.E.2d 918 (1965); David v. Bowen, 191 Ga. 467, 12 S.E.2d 873 (1941); Thompson v. Glenwood Community Club, 191 Ga. 196, 12 S.E.2d 623 (1940)......
-
Douglas v. Wages
...208 Ga. 709(2), 69 S.E.2d 258 (1952). Accordingly, activities of a commercial nature would not be permitted. See Taylor v. Smith, 221 Ga. 55(3), 142 S.E.2d 918 (1965); Voyles v. Knight, 220 Ga. 305(2), 138 S.E.2d 565 (1964). Non-commercial recreational activities, however, are within the pu......
-
Department of Transp. v. Knight
...We find this language insufficient to create a covenant, intent to create which must be manifested by the document. Taylor v. Smith, 221 Ga. 55, 56, 142 S.E.2d 918 (1965). See generally, Richmond County Property Owners Assoc. v. Augusta- Richmond County Coliseum Auth., 233 Ga. 94, 96, 210 S......
-
Cato v. English
...agreement. This court has applied this principle in numerous cases, even if the facts in the cases differ from this one. Taylor v. Smith, 221 Ga. 55, 142 S.E.2d 918; Awtrey v. Awtrey, 225 Ga. 666, 171 S.E.2d 126; Sanders v. Vaughn, 223 Ga. 274, 154 S.E.2d 616; Chapman v. Gordon, 29 Ga. 250;......