Matthews v. Olson
This text of 212 So. 2d 357 (Matthews v. Olson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellants purchased property zoned for commercial use but restricted to residential use by a covenant running with the land of which they had actual as well as constructive notice. They built and operated a day nursery without seeking the advice of a lawyer. This was error on their part, but there was none on the part of the learned chancellor who enjoined permanently the violation of the restriction. Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 106 So. 901, 43 A.L.R. 1127 (1925); Hagan v. Sabal Palms, Inc., 186 So.2d 302 (Fla.2d D.C.A.1966); Thompson v. Squibb, 183 So.2d 30 (Fla.2d D.C.A.1966).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
212 So. 2d 357, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-olson-fladistctapp-1968.