BUILDING RESTRICTION. When one makes deeds of different portions of a tract of land, each containing the same restriction upon the lot conveyed which is imposed as a part of a general plan for the benefit of the several lots, such a restriction not only im poses a liability upon the grantee of each lot as between him and the grantor, but it gives him a right in the nature of an easement which will be enforced in equity against the grantee of one of the other lots, although there is no direct contractual relation be tween the two. Through the common char acter of the deeds, the grantees are given an interest in a' contractual stipulation which is used for their common benefit ; Evans v. Foss, 194 Mass. 513, 80 N. E. 587, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1039, 11 Ann. Cas. 171, where the erection of a garage was held to be within a restriction forbidding the erection on the property of any building for shops or any other business objectionable to the neighbor hood for dwelling houses. The maintenance of a hospital was enjoined where a covenant provided that the premises should not be leased for any noisome, obnoxious or offen sive trade or business ; 58 L. J. Ch. N. S. 83 ; 48 id. 339. An undertaker's establishment where bodies were received, kept and em balmed, funeral services and autopsies were held, and bodies dissected, was enjoined where the restriction provided that no trade or business offensive to the neighborhood should be carried on ; Rowland v. Miller, 139 N. Y. 93, 34 N. E. 765, 22 L. R. A. 182. The location of a coal yard which received and broke up coal and separated it from the dust was enjoined under such a restrictive cove nant ; Barron v. Richard, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 96 ; as was the location of a large school for boys ; 68 L. J. Ch. 8.
But such a covenant is held not, as a mat ter of law, to be violated by the erection of a three-story building with stores on the first floor and flats or apartments above ; Hurley v. Brown, 44 App. Div. 480, 60 N. Y. Supp. 846 ; or by one for the sale of groceries and provisions ; Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448; Evans v. Foss, 194 Mass. 513, 80 N. E. 587, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1039, 11 Ann. Cas. 171. Gen erally, such restrictions will be construed in favor of the free use of property ; James v. Irvine, 141 Mich. 376, 104 N. W. 631.
That a house shall be set back a certain distance and shall correspond with the gran tor's adjoining house is the benefit of .the land, and not a personal covenant: its life is limited to the life of the first house erected on the granted premises ; Welch v. Austin,
187 Mass. 256, 72 N. E. 972, 68 L. R. A. 189.
See EASEMENT; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; POLICE POWER.
The state may limit the height of buildings to be erected in cities ; Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 79 N. E. 745, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1160, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523 ; Cochran v. Pres ton, 108 Md. 220, 70 Atl. 113, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1163, 129 Am. St. Rep. 432, 15 Ann. Cas. 1048. It may permit them to be higher in the sections where there is a demand for of fice space than in the residential portions, though the streets in the former may be nar rower than in the latter ; Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 79 N. E. 745, 23 L. R.. A. (N. S.) 1160, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523. It may re strict, the height of buildings adjacent to a certain square in a city, compensation being given to persons injured in their property rights ; Attorney General v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476, 55 N. E. 77, affirmed in Williams v. Parker, 188 U. S. 491, 23 Sup. Ct. 440, 47 L. Ed. 559, where the statute was held not to be in conflict with the federal constitution.
A city may forbid the erection of any frame structure within the "fire limits"; O'Bryan v. Apartment Co., 128 Ky. 282, 108 S. W. 257, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 419 ; may re quire the removal of a wooden building with in such limits ; Davison v. City of Walla Walla, 52 Wash. 453, 100 Pac. 981, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, 132 Am. St. Rep. 983; may require buildings used for certain purposes to be equipped with fire escapes ; Arnold T. Starch Co., 194 N. Y. 42, 86 N. E. 815, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 178; may refuse its consent to the repair of a 'wooden building within the fire limits which has been damaged by fire; Brady v. Ins. Co., 11 Mich. 425. The owner thereof in such case, it is said, must first be given opportunity to remove the building; Village of Louisville v. Webster, 108 Ill. 418.
It may destroy a building infected with smallpox, as a nuisance ; Sings v. City of Joliet, 237 Ill. 300, 86 N. E. 663, 22 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 1128, 127 Am. St. Rep. 323. It may prevent the moving of a wooden building into the city limits from a point outside ; Red Lake Falls Milling Co. v. City of Thief River Falls, 109 Minn. 52, 122 N. W. 872, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 456, 18 Ann. Cas. 182; Griffin v. City of Gloversville, 67 App. Div. 403, 73 N. Y. Supp. 684; Kaufman v. Stein, 138 hid. 49, 37 N. E. 333, 48 Am. St. "Rep. 368.