Court Opinion

ID: 9662320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:05:49.627456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:38.533841
License: Public Domain

*816On Rehearing.
On rehearing appellants again assert that the issues here involved cannot be adjudicated in this case because of the lack of necessary and indispensable parties, especially the present owner of the Ham-becker lot.
The Hambecker correction deed is not the character of contract intended to apply solely as between grantor and grantee. It is more than a private personal contract between Hambecker and Wright. Its terms plainly indicate that it was entered into for the benefit of others as well as the original signers. The language of the deed plainly shows such intention. We quote from the deed:
“Whereas, said deed of conveyance failed to recite the restrictions as set out upon the property in said acreage tracts as heretofore conveyed by the said J. V. Wright and wife, Amy Elizabeth Wright, to the adjoining property owners * * * and for the further consideration that similar restrictions be placed upon other surrounding property owned by the said J. V. Wright and tv hen sold and disposed of * * (Emphasis ours).
Appellants themselves recognize the true character of the Hambecker correction deed when, in support of their contention that Wright pursued a general plan and scheme for the development of his whole 122½ acre tract, they say: “The jury’s finding that no general plan existed was without basis in fact, * * *. Every act of Wright bespeaks the singleness of this purpose. * * *. The circumstance of the omission of the usual restrictions from the original Hambecker deed and the subsequent execution of the Hambecker Correction Instrument but emphasize and make clear that purpose. By that instrument he brought to a full consummation, of record, the plan from which he had never deviated.” (Emphasis ours).
It has long been the established law of this State that when restrictive covenants in a deed are purportedly part of a general plan and scheme, or themselves attempt to establish a general plan and scheme, interested landowners may maintain a suit for the purpose of enforcing said restrictions though they were not parties to the original covenants. The key case so holding is Hooper v. Lottman, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W. 270. In Curlee v. Walker, 112 Tex. 40, 244 S.W. 497, our Supreme Court quotes at length and approves the holding in the Hooper case. Other courts have applied the rule. Finley v. Carr, Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W.2d 439; Scaling v. Sutton, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 275; Russell Realty Co. v. Hall, Tex.Civ.App., 233 S.W. 996; Allen v. Avondale Co., 135 Fla. 6, 185 So. 137. The Hambecker correction deed contains covenants of the kind and character passed on in the above cases.
Of course, if such a suit may in some instances be maintained by owners who were not parties to the original covenant in an effort to enforce restrictions, a suit may also be maintained by an owner to. show that he is not properly to be included among those allegedly bound by the re-trictions. This is such a suit. Appellee says the covenants in the Hambecker correction deed do not reach to and include-appellee and its property. Appellee is entitled to an adjudication of the question. Notwithstanding Wright’s obvious attempt to set up some sort of general plan in the Hambecker deed, we held in our original' opinion, and we still hold that the land description of the area to be included in the-plan is too vague and indefinite for it to-be said that appellee’s property is included.
Under the authorities cited here,, and in our original opinion, the present owner of the Hambecker lot was not a necessary and indispensable party, hence the-fact that said owner is not a party hereim is not fatal to the prosecution of this action as a class suit.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.