Home/Court of Appeals of Maryland/Summers v. Beeler

Summers v. Beeler

48 L.R.A. 54, 45 A. 19, 90 Md. 474, 1899 Md. LEXIS 109
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedDecember 9, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 48 L.R.A. 54 (Summers v. Beeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Summers v. Beeler, 48 L.R.A. 54, 45 A. 19, 90 Md. 474, 1899 Md. LEXIS 109 (Md. 1899).

Opinion

Pea.rce, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity filed by the appellants to restrain the appellees from erecting upon their own premises, adjoining those of the appellants, a bay-window, in violation, as the appellants claim, of restrictions contained in conveyances for their respective premises from a common vendor, to whom their titles are traced through mesne conveyances. A preliminary injunction was granted, and was dissolved upon hearing, and thereupon this appeal was taken.

Rev. C. L. Keedy, being the owner of a tract of land in Hagerstown, on the east side of Mulberry street, laid out the tract into twenty-eight lots, fourteen of which fronted on Mulberry street, and fourteen extended back eastward, fronting on King street, as shown in the accompanying plat, which was recorded among the Land Records of Washing *478 ton County, but without anything thereon, or in the description of the lots which accompanied the plat, to indicate any restrictions upon the use of the lots or any of them. In the subsequent sale and conveyance of these lots fronting on Mulberry street, certain restrictions as to the building line to be observed were inserted in some of the deeds, while in others there were no restrictions whatever. Lots i, 2, 14, 3 and ‘5 were the first sold, and in the order named, without any restriction as to their use. These conveyances were all made between June 28th, 1888, and November 23rd, 1888.

*477 EpdhknFqNbPzcuiLLLUR5dM

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

Related

Hornsby v. O'Malley
D. Alaska, 2023
Shoney's Inc. v. Cooke
353 S.E.2d 300 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1987)
Turner v. Brocato
111 A.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
Schlosser v. Creamer
284 A.2d 220 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1971)
Toney Schloss Properties Corporation v. Berenholtz
220 A.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1966)
Noonan v. Cuddigan
131 A.2d 241 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1957)
Bessette v. Guarino
128 A.2d 839 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1957)
Club Manor, Inc. v. Oheb Shalom Congregation
128 A.2d 405 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1957)
Scholtes v. McColgan
41 A.2d 479 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1945)
Whitmarsh v. Richmond
20 A.2d 161 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1941)
American Weekly, Inc. v. Patterson
16 A.2d 912 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1940)
Schlicht v. Wengert
15 A.2d 911 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1940)
McKenrick v. Savings Bank
197 A. 580 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)
Meade v. Dennistone
196 A. 330 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)
Legum v. Carlin
177 A. 287 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1935)
Verber v. Seamen's Bank
151 Misc. 538 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1934)
Kleis v. Katcef
154 A. 558 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1931)
Bristol v. Woodward
167 N.E. 441 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Koether v. Miller
4 Balt. C. Rep. 797 (Baltimore City Circuit Court, 1928)
Clem v. Valentine
141 A. 710 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 L.R.A. 54, 45 A. 19, 90 Md. 474, 1899 Md. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summers-v-beeler-md-1899.