Full text
J. M. OLDHAM and Wife, MARY A. OLDHAM, J. LEAK SPENCER, A. BURWELL, LEE A. FOLGER, G. G. GALLOWAY and Wife, CARRIE MARSHALL GALLOWAY, W. J. BROWN, ADOLPH M. YOUNG and Wife, NANCY YOUNG, E. C. SWEENEY and Wife, L. W. SWEENEY, C. W. JOHNSTON, J. A. C. WADSWORTH, M. L. CANNON, EDWIN L. JONES and Wife, ANNABELLE LAMBETH JONES, STERLING GRAYDON, H. A. LONDON, WM. H. PORCHER and Wife, ACTON LATTA PORCHER, FRANK O. SHERRILL and Wife, RUTH J. SHERRILL, F. M. REDD and CHARLOTTE CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation, in Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Owning Lots in the Subdivision of DILWORTH, Hereinafter Referred To, Who May Come in and Make Themselves Parties Plaintiff in This Action, v. T. S. McPHEETERS and JOHN CROSLAND
Per Curiam.
This is the same lot with the same restrictions which was passed upon in Higgins v. Hough, 195 N. C., 652. That case was heard before Harding, J. After setting out the various violations of the restrictions, the court further found: “The court further finds as a fact that the character of the community has been changed by the expansion of the city and the spread of industry and other causes resulting in a substantial subversion or fundamental change in the essential character of the property herein referred to. That changed conditions resulting from the natural growth of the city bringing industry, traffic and apartment houses, clubs, mosques, and churches into such close proximity to the restricted area or property herein described as to render it undesirable for the purpose to which it is restricted. That violations of the restrictions have been so general as to indicate and in fact do indicate the purpose and intention on the part of the residents of the community to abandon the general scheme or purpose in this immediate section. . . . The court further finds as a fact that it is inequitable and unjust to require the enforcement of the restrictions and that it is detrimental and injurious to the market value of the property, and if said restrictions are permitted to continue that it will retard the advancement and upbuilding of the property for the purpose for which it can be best used.”
*143 On appeal to tbis Court, the judgment was affirmed. The facts in the above action were agreed upon, but the plaintiffs were not parties to the action and therefore not bound by same.
The defendants contend that “This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment in the lower court denying a mandatory injunction to require the defendants to tear down and remove four stores from the lot on account of an alleged violation of the building restrictions. . . .
The defendants in this case are the successors in title of the defendant in the Higgins case, supra. They were not parties to that case, but acquired their title after it was decided, and built their stores in reliance upon that decision.”
From a careful review of the record and able briefs of plaintiffs in this action, we see no prejudicial or reversible error in the judgment of the court below. The judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.
