Barnett v. Vaughan Institute

1. Covenants (§ 103*)—Building Restrictions—Construction—“Private House”—“Dwelling House.” A restrictive building coVfenant, stipulating that the buildings erected on the premises shall be first-class “private houses” prohibits the use of a private dwelling on the premises for a private sanitarium; for a “private house” is a “private dwelling” intended for private living, and a private dwelling is a “dwelling house” in which a person or family lives in an individual or private state. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Covenants, Cent. Dig. § 169; Dec Dig. § 103.* For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, voi. 6, pp. 5572, 5573.] 2. Injunction (§ 62*)—Building Restrictions—Enforcement. A restrictive building covenant will be enforced in equity, though its violation does not impair the value of the property, or though a violation even increases the value. [Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 124-127; Dec. Dig. § 62 ;* Deeds, Cent. Dig. § 546.] 3. Covenants (§ 103*)—Building Restrictions—Violations. A restrictive building covenant, stipulating that the buildings erected on the premises shall be first-class private houses and shall stand back at least 20 feet from the street line, is not violated by moving a first-class dwelling to the rear of a first-class private house erected in accordance with the covenant, with a space between the two buildings. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Covenants, Cent. Dig. § 169,; Dec. Dig. § 103.*]

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County. Action by Lissa M. Barnett against the Vaughan Institute, From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.