Case Name: HANES v. LAND CO.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1901-12-10
Citations: 129 N.C. 311
Docket Number: 
Parties: HANES v. LAND CO.
Judges: Dou&las, J., concurs in result only.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 311–313

Head Matter:
HANES v. LAND CO.
(Filed December 10, 1901.)
DEDICATION — What Constitutes — Plat.
"Where a land company sells lots by a plat and in a deed calls for a “hotel site,” it is not such a dedication that the “hotel site” may not he used for other than hotel purposes.
ActioN by P. H. and J. W. Hanes against The West End Hotel and Land Company, Thomas .Patterson and others, heard by Judge H. B. Starbuck, at September Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Foesyth County. From a judgment for the plaintiffs, the defendant Patterson appealed.
J ones & Patterson, for the plaintiffs.
No counsel for the defendants.

Opinion:
MoktgomeRy, J.
The defendant The West End Hotel and Land Company, with the view of opening up a tract of land as a suburb of tbe city of Winston, laid it off into lots to be sold for bornes and business purposes, with convenient squares, streets and avenues, and at tbe same time made a map or plat of tbe property to' be used, and wbicb was used, in,making sales óf tbe lots. A part of this map or- plat represented a lot of six acres, and was designated as tbe 'Hotel Site." While tbe Hotel Zinzendorf, wbicb was afterwards built on tbe six-acre lot, was standing and being operated, tbe defendant Patterson, in 1892-, bought one of tbe lots from tbe land company, and in tbe deed from tbe company to him, reference was made to tbe map or plat.
The'plaintiff, in 1896, after tbe hotel was burnt, bought from tbe defendant, tbe land company, tbe six-acre loc on wbicb it stood. Tbe plaintiff does not intend to rebuild tbe hotel, but does intend to use tbe land for other purposes, and tbe defendant Patterson, particularly, is claiming a special interest in tbe lot to tbe extent, as be insists, that tbe property can be used for no other purpose than for that of a hotel; and this insistence and claim of tbe plaintiff, tbe defendant alleges, is injuring tbe value of bis property and casting a cloud upon bis title to tbe same.
Tbe claim of tbe defendant Patterson that tbe "hotel site," •because it was laid off on tbe map and referred to in tbe deed to himself, was on that account in some way dedicated to tbe public, incapable of being put to any other use, we^fcbink, is not well founded.
Tbe Court decided in Conrad v. Land Co., 126 N. C., 776, that as tbe purchasers of lots bad been induced to buy under the map and plat, tbe streets and public grounds designated on tbe map should be forever open to tbe purchasers and to tbe public; but it was not intended to go to tbe length of extending that principle to a lot, marked as tbe "hotel site." All tbe streets on such a map are deemed in law to be of advantage to the owners of lots, and parks and squares are both useful and ornamental, and tbeix use and benefit form such a consideration in the purchase of property laid out on the map as that purchases are made largely upon such inducement. They are for the use of the public as well as for the purchasers. It is not certain, however, that a hotel would necessarily be a benefit to the owners of the lots. If it was a building of correct design and proportions, and well ordered in its management, it might be a benefit to a community ; on the other hand, if it was an inferior structure, unsightly in its proportions and badly conducted as an inn, it might be of more than doubtful utility. But, beyond r.hat, the purchasers of lots had no more right to anticipate Uiat the hotel would be built upon the lot of six acres than that ihe other lots on the plat would be built upon.
The certainty of streets and squares was the inducement to purchasers to buy lots, the sale and utilization of other lots being a matter more of hope and faith than of implied bargain and contract. The lot marked "hotel site," meant no more than if the promoters had said "this would be a good location for a hotel"; it was no guaranty that it would be built. It makes no difference that the plaintiff bought the six-acre lot after the hotel was burnt, because there was no implied or express agreement that either he or the land company would rebuild it in case of its destruction.
We think, therefore, that the judgment of his- Honor was a proper one, and the same is
Affirmed.
Dou&las, J., concurs in result only.