Court Opinion

ID: 9660030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:01:46.345275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:14.051300
License: Public Domain

SIMS, Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion, and as the question involved is of such moment, I desire to set out my reasons in this dissent.
The majority opinion correctly states the law applicable but, as I see it, falls into error in the application of the ■ facts to: the rule of law. There were some 40 to -SO feet' taken off the east ends of lots 1-to 5j inclusive, and a material part taken' off lot' 28 when the highway was constructed through the restricted area. The record shows from 400 to 500 motor vehicles travel this new highway every hour. The situation is comparable to one where a trunk line railroad had been run through this property restricted for residential purposes. One might as well have a residence abutting a, railroad as abutting a highway carrying such a stream of traffic, much of which is large freight trucks.
This case is easily distinguished from Bickell v. Moraio, 117 Conn. 176, 167 A. 722, discussed in Annotations of 4 A.L.R. 2d 1130. There, the restricted property was already located on the Post Road which was' merely widened, which resulted in an increase of traffic. While here, the trunk line highway was put through the restricted property which theretofore had not abutted any road and had suffered no annoyance or inconvenience from any traffic.
To my mind putting this highway through the property protected by the restricted covenant makes such a change in conditions of the property as to neutralize the benefits of the restriction and to defeat the purpose of the covenant. Goodwin Bros. v. Combs Lumber Co., 275 Ky. 114, 120 S.W.2d 1024. This is what the learned judge held on a question of fact. To me his judgment is correct and is about as far from being clearly erroneous as can be imagined. Hence under CR 52.01, I think the judgment should be affirmed.
For the reasons given I most respectfully dissent. I am authorized to say that Judge CAMMACK joins in this dissent.