Hills v. Metzenroth

53 N.E. 890, 173 Mass. 423, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1109
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 19, 1899·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

The findings of the judge were well warranted by the evidence stated in the report.

It being established by the findings that the original grantors of the lots into which the tract was divided inserted language in all of the various deeds intended to create restrictions upon the land for the benefit of all the grantees as a part of a general scheme of improvement, the plaintiff can maintain his bill in equity to prevent a violation of the restrictions. Whitney v. Union Railway, 11 Gray, 359. Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen, 341. Jeffries v. Jeffries, 117 Mass. 184. Sanborn v. Rice, 129 Mass. 387. Payson v. Burnham, 141 Mass. 547. Nano v. Bigelow, 155 Mass. 341. Decree for the plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hills v. Metzenroth, 53 N.E. 890, 173 Mass. 423, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1109 (Mass. 1899).

53 N.E. 890 (Hills v. Metzenroth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Snow v. Van Dam
197 N.E. 224 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Lacentra v. Valeri
244 Mass. 404 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Rogers v. Zwolak
110 A. 674 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1920)
Duester v. Alvin
145 P. 660 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Codman v. Bradley
87 N.E. 591 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Evans v. Foss
80 N.E. 587 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Hazen v. Mathews
68 N.E. 838 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Bacon v. Sandberg
60 N.E. 936 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)