Parker v. Kenworthy

California Supreme Court

Parker v. Kenworthy

186 P. 950, 181 Cal. 783, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 428

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 29, 1919

DocketL. A. No. 4914.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 P. 950 (Parker v. Kenworthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Kenworthy, 186 P. 950, 181 Cal. 783, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 428 (Cal. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

OLNEY, J.

This is an action between the owners of lots in the same tract as that involved in Werner v. Graham, ante, p. 174, [183 Pac. 945]. The dispute is here, as there, as to the reciprocal rights of the present owners of lots in that tract. The material facts are identical. The only differences are (1) that this is an action by certain lot owners against another seeking affirmatively to enforce certain restrictions as to the use of the latter’s lot, while in Werner v. Graham the position of the parties was reversed and the plaintiff was seeking to free his lot of the claim of the defendants that they were entitled to enforce such restrictions, and (2) that in the present case the trial court held that the restrictions were not in force as between the present lot owners, while in Werner v. Graham the trial court held that they' were. Our conclusion in Werner v. Graham accords with the result reached by the lower court in this action and necessitates an affirmance of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Shaw, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

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

OLNEY, J.

This is an action between the owners of lots in the same tract as that involved in Werner v. Graham, ante, p. 174, [183 Pac. 945]. The dispute is here, as there, as to the reciprocal rights of the present owners of lots in that tract. The material facts are identical. The only differences are (1) that this is an action by certain lot owners against another seeking affirmatively to enforce certain restrictions as to the use of the latter’s lot, while in Werner v. Graham the position of the parties was reversed and the plaintiff was seeking to free his lot of the claim of the defendants that they were entitled to enforce such restrictions, and (2) that in the present case the trial court held that the restrictions were not in force as between the present lot owners, while in Werner v. Graham the trial court held that they' were. Our conclusion in Werner v. Graham accords with the result reached by the lower court in this action and necessitates an affirmance of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Shaw, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 P. 950, 181 Cal. 783, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-kenworthy-cal-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack