Scollard v. Normile
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Fiol Gomila v. López de la Rosa (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1934)
- Fiol Gomila v. López de la Rosa (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1934)
- Foster v. Bunting (Tex. App. 1929)
- R. E. Cunniff, Inc. v. Community Service Stations, Inc. (Mass. 1962)
- Gilbert v. Repertory, Inc. (Mass. 1939)
- Loud v. Pendergast (Mass. 1910)
- Cowan (Massachusetts Land Court 1901)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Upon the facts found by the judge and those shown on the plan, there is no equity in the case of the plaintiffs. -Both parties have violated the restrictions, and in each case the violation was not wilful but unintentional. In view of these circumstances, the kind and degree of the respective violations and the short time remaining of the -life of the restrictions, it would be plainly inequitable to compel the defendant to move or alter his building at the request of the plaintiffs, the situation of whose building, so far as respects the restrictions, is nearly, if not fully, as objectionable as that of the defendant. See Bacon v. Sandberg, 179 Mass. 396, and authorities cited therein as to the principles which should govern in such a case.
Decree affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.