Stroupe v. Medernach

196 N.C. 305
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 28, 1928·Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: The appeal presents the single question as to whether a building restriction in a deed which provides that the lot of land thereby conveyed “shall be used for residential purposes only . . . and there shall not, at any one time, be more than one residence or dwelling-house on said lot (servants’ houses excepted),” [307]*307would be violated by erecting on said premises “an apartment-house of several stories in height to be occupied by a great number of families.” We think not.

It was held in Construction Co. v. Cobb, 195 N. C., 690, 143 S. E., 522, that this covenant was not so restrictive as to prohibit the erection of an apartment-house, when used for residential purposes only, hence, upon authority of the Cobb case, the ruling of the trial court must be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Stroupe v. Medernach, 196 N.C. 305 (N.C. 1928).

196 N.C. 305 (Stroupe v. Medernach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Charlotte Consolidated Construction Co. v. Cobb
143 S.E. 522 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)