Hamlen v. Werner

11 N.E. 684, 144 Mass. 396, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 192
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 7, 1887·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

Hamlen v. Werner, 11 N.E. 684, 144 Mass. 396, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 192 (Mass. 1887).

11 N.E. 684 (Hamlen v. Werner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elm Hill Homes, Inc. v. Jessie
857 S.W.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1993)
Castleman v. Avignone
12 F.2d 326 (D.C. Circuit, 1926)
Duester v. Alvin
145 P. 660 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Codman v. Bradley
87 N.E. 591 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
American Unitarian Ass'n v. Minot
71 N.E. 551 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Jackson v. Stevenson
31 N.E. 691 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)