We have had cited to us, by the attorneys in this case, the decisions in the cases of Hunt v. Held, 90 OS. 280; Arnoff v. Williams, et al., 94 OS. 145; Arnoff, et al., v. Chase, et al., 101 OS. 331, and Hitz v. Flower, et al., 104 OS. 47. The plaintiff’s attorney relies upon Arnoff, et al., v. Chase, et al., supra, and the defendant’s attorneys rely upon the other cases herein cited.

From an examination of these cases and the facts in the instant case, we are unanimously of the opinion that the case of Arnoff, et al., v. Chase, et al., supra, controls us in arriving at a proper decision in this ease.

The court said, in referring to deed restrictions, that the words “house” and “residence,” as used in common speech, are the equivalent of the home known as a residence occupied by one family.

We are satisfied that the original alloter, when he used the expression “only one residence shall be erected on any lot,” intended that any residence building erected thereon should be used as a one-family residence, as the phrase is commonly used and understood by people who buy and sell real estate; and when the defendant attempts to erect a building on her lot for the purpose of having four single residences in one building, she violates the plain and ordinary meaning which should be and is given to the word “residence,” and her attempt is as much a violation of the restrictions as though the defendant were attempting to erect four single residences upon said lot — which right, of course, the defendant would not claim.

We are therefore of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief asked, and a permanent injunction is issued, preventing the said defendant from erecting the building that she admits she intends to erect.