Vittitow v. Dodson
| Decision Date | 28 May 1946 |
| Parties | VITTITOW v. DODSON et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County; Sidney B. Neal, Judge.
Suit between J. A. Vittitow and Gertrude Dodson and Leslie Dodson her husband, for purpose of determining whether a certain lot was covered by restrictions in a deed of dedication. From judgment entered, J. A. Vittitow appeals.
Affirmed.
G. Wallace Thacker, of Owensboro, for appellant.
Wilson & Wilson, of Owensboro, for appellees.
This controversy brings before us the question of whether a lot at the southwest corner of Frederica Street and Ford Avenue, in Owensboro, is covered by the restrictions in a deed of dedication which was executed by Lula Ford Todd and C. A Todd, her husband, on August 12, 1937.
The pertinent provisions of that deed are as follows:
A copy of the plat referred to in the deed is a part of the record, and from the deed and the plat we must determine whether the lot in question was intended to be included as a part of the 'Todd addition' and is subject to the restrictions contained in the deed.
On April 10, 1946, the present owners of the lot involved, the appellees herein, entered into a contract with the appellant by the terms of which the appellees agreed to convey the lot to the appellant for the sum of $13,600 by a deed of general warranty free and clear of all restrictions and restrictive covenants. Being in doubt as to whether or not the lot was subject to the restrictions contained in the deed of dedication, the appellant refused to accept the deed and this suit to determine the rights of the parties resulted. The lower court held that the lot was not a part of the 'Todd Addition' and not subject to those restrictions, and this appeal followed.
In reaching a decision of the question presented we must apply general principles of law which are established in this jurisdiction. In the case of Foos v. Engle et al., 295 Ky. 114, 174 S.W.2d 5, 9, this court said: 'It is a generally recognized rule of law that restrictions on the use of real property are to be strictly construed and given the effect which the language in which they are expressed authorizes when considered in connection with the circumstances surrounding the transaction and the objects which the parties had in view at the time of their creation.'
To the same effect see Holliday v. Sphar, 262 Ky. 45, 89 S.W.2d 327, and the cases cited therein.
In the case of Meyer et al. v. Stein et al., 284 Ky. 497, 145 S.W.2d 105, 106, it is said:
In Glenmore Distrilleries Company v. Fiorella et al., 273 Ky. 549, 117 S.W.2d 173, 176, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parrish v. Newbury
...and constitute a grant or covenant by the reference. 14 Am.Jur., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Sec. 203; Vittitow v. Dodson, 302 Ky. 418, 194 S.W.2d 996; Cassell v. Reeves, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 801; Stanley v. Greenfield, 207 Ga. 390, 61 S.E.2d 818, 21 A.L.R.2d 1256. This cryptic endor......
-
Bellemeade Co. v. Priddle
...covenants apply to Section V had the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that they so apply. Vittitow v. Dodson, 302 Ky. 418, 194 S.W.2d 996 (1946); 21 C.J.S. Covenants § 19, p. 896. They have failed to do The reciprocal covenant doctrine must be applied with extreme caution.......
-
Holmes v. Couch, No. 2007-CA-000445-MR (Ky. App. 6/20/2008)
...Sphar, 262 Ky. 45, 89 S.W.2d 327 (1935); Glenmore Distilleries Co. v. Fiorella, 273 Ky. 549, 117 S.W.2d 173 (1938); Vittitow v. Dodson, 302 Ky. 418, 194 S.W.2d 996 (1946); Dorsey v. Fishermen's Wharf Realty Co., 306 Ky. 445, 207 S.W.2d 565 (1948)). The intention in respect to a restrictive ......
- Parsley v. Madison