Court Opinion

ID: 9645213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:16:29.238888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:25.050386
License: Public Domain

*216Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Chief Justice Bell :
The building restriction which all agree must be strictly construed against the grantors and their successors in title pertinently provides: “That no building except for residence purposes* shall ever be erected upon said premises ... or used or occupied as a hotel, etc. or for any other offensive purpose or occupation whatsoever.”
When the grantors or their grantees or successors have abandoned the restriction, or there has been a substantial change in the character of the immediate neighborhood, Equity will not restrain a violation thereof unless the building restriction is still of substantial value to a dominant lot: Price v. Anderson, 358 Pa. 209, 56 A. 2d 215. The neighboring buildings superficially resemble residences; they have a residential exterior with a commercial interior. They masquerade as residences but they are in reality similar to a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
I would hold that the so-called residences which are used for commercial purposes, and have become commercial buildings (1) are no longer residences, and (2) that the crucial finding of the chancellor is a conclusion and not a true finding of fact, and consequently is not entitled to the weight which an appellate Court accords to a true finding of fact. Watt Estate, 409 Pa. 44, 50, 185 A. 2d 781; Selheimer v. Manganese Corp., 423 Pa. 563, 581, 224 A. 2d 634.
I would therefore hold that this building restriction, which is essentially a residential restriction, is no longer equitably enforceable.
Mr. Justice MuSMANNO joins in this dissenting opinion.

Italics, ours.