Brown v. Wrightman
Before: Taggart
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
TAGGART, J.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants. Appellant contends that the findings of fact made by the superior court entitle him to judgment against the defendants as prayed for in his complaint.
A summary of the findings of fact material here shows: That on the fourteenth day of December, 1886, plaintiff sold and conveyed to defendants’ predecessors in title forty-five acres of land, adjoining the town of San Bernardino. The deed of conveyance contained the following condition: “This grant is made upon the following expressed condition subsequent, to-wit: That there shall never be conducted upon said premises or any part thereof the business of selling intoxicating liquors at retail, nor shall there ever be kept or maintained upon said premises or any part thereof any bawdy house, house of illfame or house of prostitution, and in case of the happening of either said events then this grant to cease and be void.”
At the time of such sale and conveyance plaintiff owned and resided and still continues to reside, upon a tract qf fifteen acres of land lying immediately west of said forty-five acre tract with only the width of a street intervening. At the time of said conveyance the district in which said two tracts of land were situated was a residential district and free from the business and houses of the character mentioned in the said condition. But in the years between 1891 and 1900 plaintiff sold portions of the tract of land so retained by him to various parties without restricting or limiting the use of the premises, and that said parties to whom the said portions were so conveyed established and maintained and continue to maintain thereon, with full knowledge, consent and acquiescence of plaintiff, houses of prostitution and places where intoxicating liquors are sold at retail. And plaintiff during said
[393]
years himself leased to persons conducting houses of prostitution and carrying on a retail liquor business houses located on said fifteen acre tract, understanding that they were to be used for such purposes. And said district in which both of said tracts of land were situate ceased to be a respectable residence neighborhood, and before the year 1902 became a district wholly devoted to places of lewd resort, houses of prostitution and retail liquor business, and that plaintiff directly, knowingly, and deliberately contributed to and acquiesced in such change.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)