{ "id": 8621467, "name": "DAVID H. CAUBLE and wife, HARRIET M. CAUBLE, on behalf of themselves and all other residents and property owners in Fairmount Park v. CARL J. BELL and wife, LOLA BEATTY BELL and the SUN OIL COMPANY, a corporation", "name_abbreviation": "Cauble v. Bell", "decision_date": "1959-03-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "722", "last_page": "725", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "249 N.C. 722" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "156 S.E. 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620253 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 S.E. 2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11303397 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S.E. 2d 710", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612341 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629236 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 S.E. 2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613207 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S.E. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625745 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 S.E. 2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625989 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627151 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627213 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 799", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219520 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S.E. 2d 384", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626492 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S.E. 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N.C. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269851 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S.E. 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 739", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616495 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0739-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 S.E. 2d 462", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610511 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N.C. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273848 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/92/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S.E. 480", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217706 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S.E. 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622384 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0048-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 534, "char_count": 8517, "ocr_confidence": 0.452, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1459480448075267e-07, "percentile": 0.5801745584395075 }, "sha256": "32b3d459a48d0a216ae4e2de15cc68337b436c0b91ee31a76dac92049020300f", "simhash": "1:90f465c24e1f3977", "word_count": 1432 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DAVID H. CAUBLE and wife, HARRIET M. CAUBLE, on behalf of themselves and all other residents and property owners in Fairmount Park v. CARL J. BELL and wife, LOLA BEATTY BELL and the SUN OIL COMPANY, a corporation." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "RodmaN, J.\nDefendants\u2019 first 'assignment of error is directed to the failure of the court to make findings of fact which conform to their views. They urge us to review the findings with a resultant picture presented by the use of their spectacles.\nThis -asserted right to review -and make -other and -additional findings is based on the fact that plaintiffs seek inj-unotive relief. This Court has the right to review findings made with respect to interlocutory orders denying or granting injunctive relief. Cahoon v. Hyde County, 207 N.C. 48, 175 S.E. 846; Wentz v. Land Co., 193 N.C. 32, 135 S.E. 480; Coates v. Wilkes, 92 N.C. 376. This is true since only questions of fact -are then considered.\nThe judgment here is a final determination -of -the rights of the parties. The mere fact that equitable (injunctive) relief is granted gives us n-o authority to modify findings determinative o-f issues of fact raised by the pleadings. McGuinn v. High Point, 217 N.C. 449, 8 S.E. 2d 462; Galloway v. Stone, 208 N.C. 739, 182 S.E. 333; Barringer v. Trust Co., 207 N.C. 505, 177 S.E. 795; Power Co. v. Power Co., 171 N.C. 248, 88 S.E. 349; Coates v. Wilkes, supra.\nIssues of fact must be determined by a jury unless such trial is waived. G.S. 1-172; Erickson v. Starling, 235 N.C. 643, 71 S.E. 2d 384. When the right to a jury trial is waived, the facts found by -the judge have the force and effect of a verdict by -a jury. N. O. Const., Art. IV, sec. 13; Rubber Co. v. Shaw, 244 N.C. 170, 92 S.E. 2d 799; Little v. Sheets, 239 N.C. 430, 80 S.E. 2d 44; Woody v. Barnett, 239 N.C. 420, 79 S.E. 2d 789; Bryant v. Bryant, 228 N.C. 287, 45 S.E. 2d 572.\nUpon appropriate \u25a0assignments of error we may examine the evidence to ascertain if there be any to support, the verdict. We may likewise, upon appropriate assignments, ascertain if the verdict is sufficient -to support the judgment, 'but we cannot enlarge or diminish findings which constitute the verdict. Power Co. v. Power Co., supra.\nThe pleadings raised issues of fact. The parties elected to waive jury trial and stipulated that the court \u201cmight hear the evidence, find the facts and enter the judgment.\u201d This \u2019Stipulation indicates an understanding of the necessity for a determination of the issues of fact raised by the pleadings.\nUpon an examination of the evidence we 'are convinced there is plenary evidence to justify the findings which the court made. The assignment directed to the insufficiency cannot be sustained.\nThe court found a uniform -plan to develop the area, including the property of plaintiffs and defendants Bell, for residential purposes. Property owners within the area included in the plan have conformed to the covenants and plan. The business development is outside of this area and beyond the power of those in the restricted area to control.\nBased on the findings suppoi ted as they \u2019are by the evidence, plaintiffs were entitled to 'injunctive relief to protect their property rights. Reed v. Elmore, 246 N.C. 221, 98 S.E. 2d 360; Muilenburg v. Blevins, 242 N.C. 271, 87 S.E. 2d 493; Higdon v. Jaffa, 231 N.C. 242, 56 S.E. 2d 661; Vernon v. Realty Co., 226 N.C. 58, 36 S.E. 2d 710; Brenizer v. Stephens, 220 N.C. 395, 17 S.E. 2d 471; McLeskey v. Heinlein, 200 N.C. 290, 156 S.E. 489.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "RodmaN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "L. B. Hollow ell and Verne E. Shive for plaintiff appellees.", "Ernest R. Warren, Grady B. Stott, Hugh W. Johnston, and J. Bruce Morton for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAVID H. CAUBLE and wife, HARRIET M. CAUBLE, on behalf of themselves and all other residents and property owners in Fairmount Park v. CARL J. BELL and wife, LOLA BEATTY BELL and the SUN OIL COMPANY, a corporation.\n(Filed 18 March, 1959.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 50\u2014\nWhile the court may review the findings of fact in injunction proceedings upon appeal from the granting or refusal of a temporary restraining order, where the court finds the facts by agreement of the parties upon the hearing upon the merits and issues a permanent restraining order on such findings, the findings are conclusive if supported by competent evidence, and the Supreme Court may review the evidence only to ascertain if there be any competent evidence to support the findings and whether the findings support the judgment.\n3. Trial \u00a7 55\u2014\nWhere a jury trial is waived and the facts are found by the court under agreement of the panties, the court\u2019s findings have the force and effect of a verdict by a jury.\n3. Deeds \u00a7 19: Injunctions \u00a7 7\u2014\nWhere the court, under agreement of the parties, finds upon the hearing- on the merits that -the subdivision in question had been developed under a uniform plan for residential purposes, conformed to within the area, and that the business development in the neighborhood was outside -the restricted area, the findings support the issuance of order enjoining a land owner and Ms prospective purchaser from effecting a threatened violation of the restrictive covenants.\nAppeal by defendants from Froneberger, J., in Chambers in Gaston Oou-nty, December 23, 1958.\nPlaintiffs, property owners in Fairmount Park, -a residential subdivision \u00a1of Gastonia, instituted this action for injunctive relief to restrain defendants Bell, likewise property owners in the subdivision, and Sun Oil Company, a prospective purchaser from the Bells, from violating covenants, appearing in deeds for lots in the subdivision, restricting the use of the property to residential purposes. Unless enjoined, defendants will erect a gasoline service station.\nDefendants assert lack of a unified plan indicated by the sale of some lots by Hanna, who owned and \u00a1subdivided the area, without any limitations with respect \u00a1to \u00a1the use of those lots and changes which have taken place in the area surrounding the \u00a1subdivision since 1921 when it was laid out. They allege these changes are of such character and magnitude as to compel the court to refuse equitable relief, leaving plaintiffs to pursue such legal remedies, if any, as they may have.\nA jury trial was waived. The court found the facts based on stipulations, 'affidavits, the pleadings, exhibits consisting of pictures taken in the -area, and a map of the \u00a1subdivision.\nThe .court found: D. B. Hanna, in 1921, caused his land to be subdivided into 124 lots known as Fairmoamt Park Subdivision. A miap of the subdivision was duly recorded in Gaston County. The deeds for 120 lots contained the \u00a1restrictive covenants which plaintiffs \u00a1seek to enforce. One deed for four lots \u00a1on the extreme eastern edge \u00a1of the subdivision did not contain these restrictions. . . (T)he said D. B. Hanna \u00a1and wife, Minnie E. Hanna, \u00a1subdivided said land, recorded the plats thereof, -and included the covenants, conditions, and restrictions in the deeds to said lots -in accordance with -and pursuant to a general plan or scheme for the improvements and development of said subdivision and that the said restrictions, covenants, and conditions were a part \u00a1of a uniform plan \u00a1or scheme for the development \u00a1of said property \u00a1and was done to induce pomchasers to pay higher prices for lots 'by reason \u00a1of the \u00a1restrictions \u00a1and their mutual protection on such \u00a1account.\n\u201c5. That the defendant, Oarl J. Bell \u00a1and wife, Lola Bell, purchased the .property now \u00a1owned by them with notice \u00a1of the \u00a1sa-id restrictions and covenants \u00a1in that the deed by which \u00a1the defendants obtained said property \u00a1and each and every deed -in the defendants\u2019 chain of title contained specific reference to \u00a1said covenants, conditions and restrictions.\n\u201c6. And the Oourt further finds \u00a1as a fact that \u00a1the restrictions, covenants, and conditions which were placed on said property in \u00a1accordance with a uniform plan or scheme of development have never been violated nor abandoned. However, outside of Fairmount Park there is a filling station situated across Franklin Avenue from the property of the defendants and -there are numerous businesses adjoining Fairmount Park on the Eastern and Northwestern side; that Franklin Avenue is a heavily (traveled street or highway and runs adjacent to Fairmount Parle on the North Side; that the City of Gas-tonia has zoned the lots of the defendants as 'Neighborhood Trading;\u2019 and that while there are numerous businesses on the West and East of Fairmount Park there has been no invasion by businesses within the restricted area.\u201d\nBased on the findings the court entered judgment enjoining the use of lots 1 and 2, Block 10, in violation of the covenants and restrictions -applicable to Fairmount Park. Defendants excepted and appealed.\nL. B. Hollow ell and Verne E. Shive for plaintiff appellees.\nErnest R. Warren, Grady B. Stott, Hugh W. Johnston, and J. Bruce Morton for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0722-01", "first_page_order": 764, "last_page_order": 767 }