West Hill Land Co. v. Ritchie

Summit Circuit Court

West Hill Land Co. v. Ritchie

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 677, 18 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 183

DecidedApril 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 677 (West Hill Land Co. v. Ritchie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Summit Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

West Hill Land Co. v. Ritchie, 32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 677, 18 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 183 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRY, J.

We see no reason why the restrictions in the deed of defendant’s grantor should not be enforced so as to prevent defendant from erecting any building nearer than the stipulated distance from the street. He had constructive notice of the restrictions when he bought. They were a part of the scheme or plan of restrictions published and adhered to by plaintiff and its trustee, Christy, who has now executed his trust by conveying the entire allotment to plaintiff. The restriction complained of is [678]*678not unreasonable. There is nothing in the evidence to show that plaintiff has waived it. True, it offered to sell to defendant its entire line of lots on defendant’s side of the street, without restrictions; but that does not amount to a waiver, much less to an estoppel. The plaintiff may, therefore, take a decree in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Winch and Marvin, JJ., concur.

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

HENRY, J.

We see no reason why the restrictions in the deed of defendant’s grantor should not be enforced so as to prevent defendant from erecting any building nearer than the stipulated distance from the street. He had constructive notice of the restrictions when he bought. They were a part of the scheme or plan of restrictions published and adhered to by plaintiff and its trustee, Christy, who has now executed his trust by conveying the entire allotment to plaintiff. The restriction complained of is [678]*678not unreasonable. There is nothing in the evidence to show that plaintiff has waived it. True, it offered to sell to defendant its entire line of lots on defendant’s side of the street, without restrictions; but that does not amount to a waiver, much less to an estoppel. The plaintiff may, therefore, take a decree in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Winch and Marvin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ohio C.C. Dec. 677, 18 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-hill-land-co-v-ritchie-ohcirctsummit-1907.