Wheeler v. Charlotte Consol. Const. Co

• Decision Date: 15 December 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 440.)
• Citation: 87 S.E. 221,170 N.C. 427
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WHEELER. v. CHARLOTTE CONSOL. CONST. CO. et al.

87 S.E. 221

170 N.C. 427

WHEELER.

v.CHARLOTTE CONSOL. CONST. CO. et al.

(No. 440.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 1915.

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

Action for injunction by O. D. Wheeler against the Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Tillett & Guthrie and Cansler & Cansler, all of Charlotte, for appellants.

John M. Robinson, of Charlotte, for appellee.

BROWN, J. [1] The object of this action is to enjoin defendants from closing up by buildings, stables, and other obstructions a strip of land designated upon the map of Dilworth, beginning at the point at which the "Boulevard" intersects with South Boule vard and extending with the width of said "Boulevard" 100 feet up to the C. C. & A. R. R.

It appears that the defendants purchased a body of land contiguous to the city of Charlotte, and laid it out as a residential suburb called Dilworth; that they had a map or plat made showing all the lots and streets which was on file in the office of the defendants, and referred to in the deeds; that on this map is delineated the streets and boulevards which are left open for public use; that defendant sold and conveyed lots to purchasers with reference to this map and the streets thereon and calling for the same in the deeds. A copy of the map is made a part of the record and shows on its face the street or boulevard running to the C. C. & A. R. R. that it is claimed the defendants have refused to keep open and upon which they are keeping stables and other obstructions.

The plaintiff is the owner of three lots in Dilworth, numbered on the map referred to, two of which were made directly to the plaintiff, and the other he acquired by mesne conveyance. The map herein referred to is made a part of the last-named deed. This deed contains no restrictions or reservations in reference to the streets, parks, and boulevards as appears in some of the deeds made by the defendants. The defendants claim the ownership of the street in question and the right to maintain certain stables and horses thereon. There can be no doubt from an inspection of the map that the street which defendant claims as its property, and therefore the right to obstruct, is clearly defined as a street on said map as much so as the other streets delineated thereon. We think the appeal presents the question of the owner of certain property dividing same into lots and streets, making a map...