Sanborn v. McLean

Facts

In 1891, the 91 lots on Collingwood Avenue in the Green Lawn subdivision in Detroit were platted and designed solely for residence purposes. On December 28, 1892, Robert J. and Joseph R. McLaughlin, then evidently the owners of the Collingwood lots, deeded lots 37 to 41 and 58 to 62 with express restrictions providing that nothing but residences costing at least $2,500 should be erected, fronting on the avenue and set back at least 20 feet. On July 24, 1893, the McLaughlins conveyed additional lots with the same restrictions, while retaining title to lot 86. On September 7, 1893, the McLaughlins deeded lot 86 without express restrictions. Through mesne conveyances, title to the west 35 feet of lot 86 passed to John A. McLean, who purchased on contract in 1910 or 1911, and then to his wife Christina McLean. When McLean purchased, a partly built dwelling house stood on the lot, which he completed and occupied. All lots on the street were occupied by residences in accordance with the general residential plan. McLean examined an abstract of title showing the subdivision plat and claimed his grantor told him the lot was unrestricted. The McLeans then began constructing a gasoline filling station at the rear end of their lot near an alley. Adjoining lot owner Sanborn and other neighboring owners brought suit to enjoin construction.

Issues

1. When a common owner sells lots subject to restrictions for the benefit of retained land, does a reciprocal negative easement attach to the retained lots barring uses forbidden to the sold lots?
2. Is a purchaser whose deed states no restrictions bound by a reciprocal negative easement, through constructive notice from the record or because the uniform residential character of the neighborhood puts him to inquiry?

Holding

A reciprocal negative easement attached to lot 86 while the McLaughlins still owned it, through their earlier sales of Collingwood lots with residential restrictions. The McLeans were bound by it: the recording acts gave them constructive notice, and the uniform residential use of the lots in view put Mr. McLean to inquiry when he bought.