Tobey v. Moore
Decision Date | 24 February 1881 |
Citation | 130 Mass. 448 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Edward S. Tobey & others v. Charles Moore |
Argued January 15, 1880
Middlesex. Bill in equity, filed December 11, 1879, to restrain the defendant from putting up a building on his land, situated on the east corner of Main Street and Trowbridge Street in Cambridge. The case was heard, on the pleadings and proofs, by Morton, J., who reported the following case for the consideration of the full court:
All the parties to the suit derive their title, by mesne conveyances from Charles C. Little and James Brown, to whom, in 1850 Richard H. Dana conveyed four lots of land, including the lands now owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant, bounded on Main Street about three hundred and fifty feet, and extending from Ellery Street on the east to Trowbridge Street on the west, which lots were one hundred and fifty feet in depth, and also fifteen other lots in the neighborhood, by a deed describing each lot by metes and bounds, and as numbered on a plan, and containing these clauses, following the habendum:
All the deeds through which the parties respectively claim title from Little and Brown are expressed to be subject to these conditions and restrictions. And the deeds made by Dana to other persons of many other lots of land in the neighborhood, and shown upon the same plan, contain similar clauses.
The defendant is now erecting a building, intended for shops for the sale of groceries and provisions, within less than eight feet of the line of Trowbridge Street, and within less than eight feet of the line of Main Street as now located and used. In 1868, the city council of Cambridge, for the purpose of widening Main Street, took a strip from the southerly side of the defendant's land, twelve and 85/100 feet wide at the corner of Trowbridge Street, and one and 5/100 feet wide at the southeasterly corner of the lot.
There was also evidence reported tending to show that the restrictions were imposed in pursuance of a general scheme of improvement, which it is now unnecessary to state.
The judge reserved for the consideration of the full court the questions whether the bill could be maintained to restrain the defendant from putting up any building on his land nearer than eight feet from the line of Main Street as widened, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamilton v. City of Jackson
...120; 2 Washb., Real Prop., 20, 579; 4 Kent. Com., 10; Smith v. Harrington, 4 Allen, 566, 567; Gray, Perp., pars. 33, 34, 39; Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448; French v. Old South Soc. 106 Mass. 479; Gray, pars. 305, 312; Vaughn v. Langford, 81 S.C. 282, 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 92. W. E. Morse ......
-
Rombauer v. Christian Church
...without violating the rule of perpetuity. Stevens v. Realty Co., 173 Mo. 511; Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities, sec. 280; Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448; Noel v. Hill, 158 Mo. App. 443. (3) A change in the character of surrounding property other than the property restricted, does not affect r......
-
Snow v. Van Dam
... ... title to the residue passed to the defendant. See, also, ... Dana v. Wentworth, 111 Mass. 291; Tobey v ... Moore, 130 Mass. 448; Maclary v. Morgan, 230 ... Mass. 80, 119 N.E. 189. Earlier as well as later purchasers ... of lots within the area ... ...
-
Rombauer v. Compton Heights Christian Church
... ... perpetuity. Stevens v. Realty Co., 173 Mo. 511; ... Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities, sec. 280; Tobey v ... Moore, 130 Mass. 448; Noel v. Hill, 158 Mo.App ... 443. (3) A change in the character of surrounding property ... other than the ... ...