Hamlen v. Werner
This text of 11 N.E. 684 (Hamlen v. Werner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
W. Allen, J.
The condition that “the front line of the building which may be erected on the said lot shall be placed on a line parallel with, and ten feet back from, the said Tremont Street,” is a valid restriction, which the plaintiff can enforce. Sanborn v. Rice, 129 Mass. 387. Bagnall v. Davies, 140 Mass. 76. Linzee v. Mixer, 101 Mass. 512. Peck v. Conway, 119 Mass. 546.
The words “ for the term of twenty years from the first day of June, A. D. 1860,” in the fifth condition, are limited to that, and do not apply to the second, upon which the plaintiff relies. Keening v. Ayling, 126 Mass. 404.
There can be no question that the defendants’ building is prohibited by the restriction. Decree affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 N.E. 684, 144 Mass. 396, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamlen-v-werner-mass-1887.