Smith v. Pindar Real Estate Co.

Russell, Chief Justice.

Counsel for the defendant in error contends: 1, that “the exact language of the covenant in question nowhere states that one residence can not be erected on less than a ‘building lot’ as defined in the restriction, but prohibits the erection of viore than one residence on a building lot. Can it not, therefore, be said that the purpose of the restriction is to prevent the erection of two or more residences on a ‘building lot/ rather than to prevent the erection of one residence on a smaller frontage than sixty feet ?” 2, that the plaintiff in error is estopped from…