Legal Opinion

Courtney v. Hunter

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided October 20, 1924No. 4403PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.

1. The restriction “for residence purposes,”• as contained in the deed involved in this ease, does not prohibit the erection of apartment-houses used exclusively for residence purposes. McMurtry v. Phillips, 103 Ky. 308 (45 S. W. 96, 40 L. R. A. 489); Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 (139 N. W. 878, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 726, 728 and note); Teagan v. Keywell, 212 Mich. 649 (180 N. W. 454); Struck v. Kohler, 187 Ky. 517 (219 S. W. 435).

2. Under the evidence the court was authorized to hold that the defendant was not violating the restriction in the deed with reference to “barns, servants’ and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schadt v. BrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  2. McMurtry v. Phillips Investment Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898
  3. Riverbank Improvement Co. v. BancroftMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
  4. Struck v. KohlerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
  5. Teagan v. KeywellMichigan Supreme Court · 1920

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Weber v. GranerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. Ainsworth v. ElderArizona Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Hamm v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
  4. Lewenstein v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  5. Hamm v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API