New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-22
no APARTMENT-HOUSE TO BE BUILT.
THE FASHIONABLE NINTE-AvE. NE1GHBoRIIoor
NOT 10 BE INVADED BY FLATS.

1hE FASHIONABLE EINTH-AvE NEIGHBORHOOD
NOT 10 BE INVADED BY FLATS.
The residents Of the blocks in Ninth-ave. running
on both sides OF Carroll-st., who have been in
trepidation les; ire sanctity OF the neighborhood
mould De invaded by apartment-house have as
sureo themselves that no such misfortune will hap
pen IN the decision which Justice Smith, OF the
supreme Court. handed down yesterday afternoon
IN 'he action brought by Jennie NJ. Turner against
ohar'es and Mary Howard and Louise Donovan for
an injunction
i"e painun alleged that In October. 1882 she
bought the lot at Nintb-ave and Carroll-st from
~ Ne-eHuaht. Charles y. Howard, and paid $4,000
-, Inc property was sold to her under restric-
'.0"s' ono OF which was that no apartment house
o-.'.a Do Quit on II. and she assured by How
'"a. me other property in tho neighborhood
uhuer Inc same restrictions. in January. 1893.
inward conveyed the property adjoining that Of
'ne plaintiff 10 his sister Mary Howard for 81 and
V'as' valuable Considerations Negotiations were
S'n oe'ween Mary Howard and Mrs Donovan In
80 as' ior the sale Of the property 10 her and II
.AHounced that the intention OF the Donovans
,~"pa' up fashionable apartment-house on the
- When Howard was asked about the affair
,.,.n ne had nothing 10 say that there were no
hsSns on that property and that an apartment
nasht be erected IL the owner wanted to
!, Ahen the action for an injunction was begun.
nys 'O' WV ''"'''''''' '"'''0' ''''''''
us,en ony possible conclusion from the evidence Is
an, s plaintiff purchased her lot from the defend
resec...ies y. Howard, upon the faith Of his rep
ID ssoh taat his property adjoining restrict
,sss~.nst the erection thereon Of ar apartment
The sshe. own deed containing a restriction Of
,asu,r 1e cnaracier 1t was natural that she should
IL 49,: her vendor what the condition OF
res.o,o.hhS property, and the evidence of his rep
eAn,.taA'e IN response to such inquiry must be
IN ~ as True especially "a ne failed TO deny It.
Il ~ pidHGh having thus established her equity
.. hsr g.Vv-rty adjoining, she can De only Givtsted
Of ~. nsnts therein BY bona-nde purchaser there
H. ys-ts value without notice. The defendant. Mary
sra ei, sister Of The defendant. Charles ~ How
oar - AIMS 10 be such purchaser. think the bur-
stVn Ter % establish :hs existence Of these
ns 80 che pleads such Defence but. afsum-
,r,,ss vu.nen 70 De upon the plaintiff. think the
de-, iesehie1 raise the presu!n p:!on that these
Ne, rs oc no: exist. ana the presumption Is not
"cas T,.nc Defendants The recital In the deed OF
ers.,on sid eneo: recital o. nornina. cor sid
Adeooa,a nc creates &C presumpticr that sai- and
Durchass ccratson PASSED which constitutes the
DEED fo ,, X oons-:ice purchaser fo- value The
prour-.,. Suss Howard recitee that sSe lakes the
This cis, suo,ec: 10 ali existing incu:rb noes"
Hrane.a 70 70 the oxten; ard nature Of the ncum-
qui,ei =, sierred 70. she should least have In
evidence ter vendor. her own brother There Is no
whole 100, ..a' ~" made any inquiry whatever The
Of ,u-.,.acrol hss the unmistakable appearance
20 de.es. comma. transfer. which cannot avail
pu;ed :hs,y,ssin.r Fights. The evidence undis-
an aps-ssss me defendant Donovan proposes eci
must hay. tls Q: tho plaintiffs lc, fhe plaintiff:
nt With costs. - '''