Williamson v. Needles

• Decision Date: 01 December 1942
• Docket Number: Case Number: 30538
• Citation: 191 Okla. 560,133 P.2d 211,1942 OK 409
• Parties: WILLIAMSON et al. v. NEEDLES et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1942 OK 409

133 P.2d 211

191 Okla. 560

WILLIAMSON et al. v. NEEDLES et al.

Case Number: 30538

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: December 1, 1942

Syllabus

¶0 1. DEDICATION--Platting of land--Dedication complete as common-law or implied dedication though some statutory requirements not observed.

Dedication of land for public purposes are of two kinds: First, statutory; and second, implied or dedications at common law. All that is required to make an implied dedication is the assent of the owner and the use of the premises for the purposes intended by the dedication, for the reason that the law considers the acts of the owner as an estoppel in pais, and precludes him from revoking the dedication. So, where land is platted into streets, lots, and blocks, and lots are sold according to the plat, the dedication is complete as a common-law or implied dedication, although some of the requirements of the statute have not been observed.

2. COVENANTS--All property owners bound by restriction in plat and dedication of addition against business buildings.

A restriction contained in plat and dedication of an addition which provides that no business building shall be erected on any of the lots therein platted is one for the mutual benefit of the property owners in said addition and is binding upon them all equally.

3. SAME--Breach of restrictions not warranted by property becoming more valuable for business purposes.

Where an addition has been platted and restricted to use for residential purposes, the fact that the property may thereafter become more valuable for business purposes is not sufficient to warrant a breach of the plat restrictions.

4. INJUNCTION--Equities not balanced in favor of one causing inequality of conditions he complains of.

The rule which requires a balancing of equities cannot be invoked by one who by his own acts has brought about the inequality of which he complains.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge.

Injunction by Ralph E. Needles and another against A. G. Williamson and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. R. Wallace and B. B. Blakeney, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Robert Burns, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

BAYLESS, J.

¶1 This action was instituted by defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, against the plaintiffs in error, hereinafter referred to as defendants, and another not here involved, to enjoin the erection and operation of an automobile service station.

¶2 Plaintiffs in their petition alleged, in substance, that they were the owners of lots 53 and 54, and that defendant A. G. Williamson was the owner of lots 29, 30, and 31, in block 2 of Crestwood addition to Oklahoma City; that plaintiffs were using their property for residential purposes in accordance with the restrictions contained in the plat and dedication of said addition; that defendant A. G. Williamson in violation of said plat restriction had obtained a permit to build an automobile service station on his said lots and had entered into a contract with his codefendant, Magnolia Petroleum Company, to lease said building to them to be operated as a retail business concern, and that defendant Williamson had further induced the adjustment board of the planning commission to zone said property for business purposes; that such action, if permitted, would destroy the value of plaintiffs' property and all other property in said block for residential purposes, and sought a permanent injunction.

¶3 The plaintiffs were given a temporary injunction, but due to inability to make the required bond this injunction never became effective.

¶4 The defendants answered separately, and after a general denial alleged, in substance, that the restrictive covenant in said plat and dedication had never become effective by reason of errors and failure to strictly follow the law, and pleaded further that plaintiffs were guilty of laches in permitting defendant to proceed without objection, and further alleged that if the restriction in said plat and dedication was ever effective, the same had been outmoded by changing conditions and should not be enforced; and, finally, defendants had proceeded to complete the erection of the building and place the same in operation, and if injunctive relief were granted, that this would result in great financial loss to the defendants. Whereupon the defendants prayed that plaintiffs be relegated to their remedy at law for damages and be denied injunctive or any other equitable relief. Upon the issues thus framed, trial was had to the court.

¶5 The evidence adduced at the trial discloses, substantially, the following state of facts: that Crestwood addition was a part of a tract of land which had been platted as Jones Park addition, and without that plat having been vacated in the manner prescribed by law, was replatted as Crestwood addition; that in the last-named plat it was provided as follows:

"That no business building shall be erected on any lots herein platted; excepting on the South side of Block 10 and on the North side of Block 1, it being the intention of the grantor herein to restrict the right to place business houses in this addition on the South one-half of Block 10 and the North onehalf of Block 1."

¶6 The evidence further showed that no business houses had been erected in block 2 of said addition; that there were a number of business houses on properties located in other additions on the east, north, and west of this addition, resulting in business properties being located immediately across from the property here, involved, and that there was considerable business development in the neighborhood. It was not shown, however, that there had been any purpose or intent on the part of the residents of Crestwood addition to abandon the general scheme or purpose for which it had been designed, but, on the contrary, it was shown that the restrictions mentioned had generally been observed, with one immaterial exception. Neither was it shown by the evidence that the purpose, due to change in condition, could any longer be accomplished, but, on the other hand, there was evidence introduced to show that substantial benefit would still inure to the residents of the district by the observance of restriction contained in the plat and dedication. Under the evidence substantially as above narrated, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined defendants from using the property here involved for business purposes. Motion for new trial was overruled, and defendants have perfected this appeal.

¶7 As grounds for reversal of the judgment below, the defendants make four contentions which may be thus summarized: (1) The restriction contained in the plat and dedication was inoperative as to the defendant A. G. Williamson; (2) the plaintiffs were guilty of laches in permitting the defendants to proceed with the erection of the filling station, and therefore should be barred from equitable relief; (3) that the restriction contained in the plat and dedication had been outmoded by changing conditions and should not be enforced by a court of equity; and (4) that applying the rule which requires a balancing of equities, the preponderant equities should have been held for the defendants.

¶8 In support of the first contention made, defendants urge that since block 2 of Jones Park addition did not contain the restrictions that were imposed upon block 2 of Crestwood addition, such restrictions so attempted to be imposed upon Crestwood addition are not effective because the plat of Jones Park addition was not vacated and existed as a barrier to the replatting of the same tract of land as Crestwood addition. In this connection they cite Scott v. Noble, 18 Okla. 409, 89 P. 1122, and Clark v. Rain, 51 Okla. 206, 151 P. 692, which announce the rule that platted subdivisions or additions to cities may be vacated only in the manner prescribed by our statutes. They also cite Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Drauver, 183 Okla. 579, 83 P.2d 840; Southwest Petroleum Co. v. Logan, 180 Okla. 477, 71 P.2d 759, and other cases as authority for the rule that restrictions are in derogation of the free use of property and are not favored and are to be given a strict construction.

¶9 We recognize these rules and the correctness of their application to the fact situations to which they were applied. However, those cases are not authority for the contention made that one plat may not be superimposed over another plat until the first plat has been vacated. We have not been cited nor have we found any cases announcing such a rule.

¶10 We are of the opinion, however, that there are other equally well-known rules applicable here which entitle plaintiffs to the equitable relief sought. We allude to the rule of equitable restrictions. We are of the opinion these other rules would suffice to require equitable protection to plaintiffs, even if it should be assumed the attempt to replat this land into Crestwood addition without first vacating Jones Park addition was abortive and ineffectual. In Tiffany Real Property (3d Ed.) vol. 3, § 858, it is said:

"The number of decisions in comparatively recent years involving the validity, construction and effect of agreements restricting the use of real property indicate the increasing use being made of them. This reflects, it has been aptly commented, the expansion of the law to meet the demands of home owners for a protection adequate to the more crowded conditions of modern life. The basis of the modern rules for the enforcement of such restrictions is that one taking land with notice that it is subject to an agreement of this character will not in equity and good conscience, be permitted to violate its terms."

"In equity, the question whether such a covenant runs with the land is material on the question of notice only, since, if it runs with the land, the purchaser is bound regardless of his

...