Peck v. Conway

119 Mass. 546, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 88

• Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Decided: March 9, 1876
• Status: Published

Opinion

Morton, J.

Both parties derive title from Richard Ensign. The deed of said Ensign, under which, through various mesne conveyances, the defendants derive their title, conveys to Joseph B. Huggins a triangular piece of land adjoining the lot now owned by the plaintiff, “ with this express reservation, that no building is to be erected by the said Joseph B., his heirs or assigns, upon the land herein conveyed.” Ensign, being owner of the fee, had the right to sell his land subject to such reservations or restrictions as to its future use and enjoyment as he saw fit to impose, provided they were not contrary to public policy. The restriction in this deed, that no building should be erected upon the land conveyed, was one which he had a right to make, and there is no room for doubt, that, if a building was erected in violation of this restriction, Ensign, as long as he lived and remained the owner of the adjoining land, would be entitled to relief in equity to enforce the restriction. Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen, 341. Whitney v. Union Railway, 11 Gray, 359. Badger v. Boardman, 16 Gray, 559.

The only question in the case is whether the plaintiff, who is the grantee of said Ensign, is entitled to the same remedy.

The reservation creates an easement, or servitude in the nature of an easement, upon the land conveyed. If this easement was created for the benefit of the adjoining lot, of which the grantor in the deed remained the owner, and not for the personal convenience of the grantor, and was intended to be annexed to such lot, it would be appurtenant thereto, and would pass to a grantee thereof.

The question whether such an easement is a personal right, or is to be construed to be appurtenant to some other estate, must be determined by the fair interpretation of the grant or reservation creating the easement, aided, if necessary, by the situar tian of the property and the surrounding circumstances.

In this case, the triangular piece of land affected by the easement was a part of a large lot owned by Ensign. He retained the remainder of the large lot for his homestead. There is no suggestion that he had other land in the vicinity, which could be benefited by the restriction. It is difficult to see how he would have any interest in restricting the use of the land sold, except as owner of the house lot which he retained. The nature of the restriction also implies that it was intended for the benefit of this lot. A prohibition against building on the land sold would be obviously useful and beneficial to this lot, giving it the benefit of better light and air and prospect; this is its apparent purpose, while it would be of no appreciable advantage for any other purpose. The fair inference is that the parties intended to create this easement or servitude for the benefit of the adjoining estate. We are therefore of opinion that it was not a mere personal right in Ensign, but was an easement appurtenant to the estate which he conveyed to the plaintiff. Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591. Stearns v. Mullen, 4 Gray, 151. It follows that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which she seeks.

The fact that the defendants, when they took their deed, had not actual knowledge of this reservation is immaterial. They derive their title under the deed which contains it, and have constructive notice of the provisions of the deed. Whitney v. Union Railway, ubi supra. Nor can the fact found by the master, that the erection of the building contemplated by the defendants “ would be no appreciable damage or injury to the plaintiff’s premises,” affect the rights of the parties. Such an act of the defendants would be against the restriction by which they are bound, and a violation of the rights of the plaintiff, of which she cannot be deprived, because in the judgment of others it is of little or no damage. Decree for the plaintiff.