10121964 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CLARK, THOMAS, HARRIS, DENIUS & WINTERS I I I Mr. B. R. Fuller October 21, 1964 -2- The Court held that the provision commencing "No retail or wholesale shop ...", was violated in that the apartment houses would not be free of the restriction due to the langunge "any business". It is my understanding that the deed restriction that you have in mind has no language to the el'i.'ect that no "b1.1Siness" can be established. In addi- tion~ the lJresidentiaJ.. purposes onlyfl, 1/,78S construed to mean housine; suita'ole for the occupancy of no mOl'e than a single family~ It is my understanding that your restriction stated that residential dwellings \'Iould 11ave at least 800 square feet, but that there was no restriction that anything placed on the land. would ha ve to be for "residential purposes only". It; is tll.us apparent that the Texas cases seem to construe the restrictions fairly closely although contained in this same case is the general rule of law that states that a restriction on land shall be construed most strongly against the one who placed the restriction there, or to put it more briefly, the law does not favor closely restricting the use of land. To give you the exact language of the Court in dealing with both of the above-mentioned restrictions in the Green Avenue case, I will quote the following paragraph: "Restriction 6 (the Olle dealing with a !"Jusiness) is llext to be considered. If Restriction 1 (the one dealing with single unit dwellings) limits each lot to a single family dwelling, thell it would have excluded and forbidden the erection of multiple dwellings for rental to the public and ~he word 'business' ill Restriction 6 should be limited to commercial pursuit such as those 'iIhich the \'lords 'shop I, 1 store I, 'industry', and 'trade', also used in Restriction 6, refer to~ However, if Restriction 1 should not be construed as prohibiting multiple dwellings for rental to the public, then the meaning of 'business-' in Restriction 6 should be considered from another vantage point, namely, the purpose Which then must be assigned to it, and with this must be considered the consequences of the com- mercial pursuits which Restriction 6 unquc3stionably does prohibit. The purpose which ought to be assigned to Restriction 6, if Restriction 1 permits a multiple dwelling, is a to exclude such pursuits as might be to by the word 'business' and would be attended by the same consequences to the residential character