Meaney v. Stork
Richard B. Meaney et ux. v. Frederick C. Stork
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
We agree with the vice-chancellor except as to the views expressed by him with reference to the porch as a violation of the restrictions. We think it unnecessary to express an opinion upon his reasoning in that regard, since the other buildings on the tract have porches as wide as or wider than the defendant’s, and no objection is shown to have been made thereto. This fact establishes either a contemporary construction by the parties concerned adverse to the complainant’s contention or an abandonment of the restriction in that respect. Upon either view, the complainant is not entitled to an injunction. The decree is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vreden-BURGIí, CONGDON, TREAOY--11.
For reversal — Uone.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.